Environmental Emergenciestragedy was caused by the release of a highly toxic cloud of methyl...
Transcript of Environmental Emergenciestragedy was caused by the release of a highly toxic cloud of methyl...
Enviro
nm
ental Em
ergen
cies | Learnin
g fro
m m
ultilateral resp
on
se to d
isasters
Environmental EmergenciesLearning from multi lateral response to disasters
Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment UnitPalais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10Switzerland
Email: [email protected]
http://ochaonline.un.org/ochaunep
Office for the Coordinationof Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA)
Environmental EmergenciesLearning from multi lateral response to disasters
Geneva 2009
Office for the Coordinationof Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA)
Published in Switzerland, 2009 by the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment UnitCopyright © United Nations 2009Document Number: XXX
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or not-for-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holders, provided acknowledgement is made of the source.
Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment UnitPalais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10SwitzerlandTel: + 41 22 917 4419Fax: + 41 22 917 0257Email: [email protected]://ochaonline.un.org/ochaunep
Disclaimer: The information and opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarilyreflect the views of the United Nations/Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit.
Writing, editing, design and layout, and proofreading: Green Ink, UK (www.greenink.co.uk)
Printing: United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland
Cover photo: Rescue teams dig out the town of Xiaolin in August 2009.The town was buried by mudslides following Typhoon Morakot © Sawyer Mars
Contents
Forewords (by Mikhail Gorbachev, Achim Steiner and John Holmes)..................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................vi
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Dealing with disasters: Developing an international response system ....................................................................................................... 7
2. Putting things right: Responding to technological emergencies ..................................................................................................................21
3. The power of nature: Environmental impact of natural disasters .................................................................................................................35
4. Conflict and war: Complex environmental emergencies......................................................................................................................................53
5. The changing face of international response ................................................................................................................................................................61
6. Stepping up preparedness activities: Meeting the challenge of climate change .............................................................................79
i v
Foreword by Mikhail Gorbachev
Having grown up in a rural area, from
a very early age I came to appreciate
the inherent interdependence of
people and nature. I discovered that
humans are not independent or
above their environment, but rather
an intrinsic and inalienable part of it.
Later, serving in various capacities for the Soviet leadership, I saw the
terrible environmental price we paid for many of our industrial and
technological decisions. None of this, however, prepared me for what
would occur early on the morning of 26 April 1986. The Chernobyl
Nuclear Power Plant disaster in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union,
resulted in a severe release of radioactivity. People will have to live
with the dire consequences regionally and locally for years – and even
centuries – to come.
It was clear to me after Chernobyl that environmental threats were
becoming more prominent. In January 1990 at the Global Forum on
Environment and Development for Survival in Moscow, I brought up the
idea for an organization that would apply the Red Cross emergency
response model to ecological conflicts and disasters and expedite solu-
tions to environmental problems that transcend national boundaries.
As a result of this, Green Cross International was created in 1993. The
mission of Green Cross is to help ensure a just, sustainable and secure
future for all by fostering a value shift and cultivating a new sense
of global interdependence and shared responsibility in humanity’s
relationship with nature. One of the areas that Green Cross focuses on
is addressing the environmental consequences of wars, conflicts and
disasters, including ensuring that environmental rehabilitation is now
included within the umbrella of humanitarian assistance.
The web between humanitarian and environmental damage is
intrinsically interconnected. Therefore, I was heartened when the Joint
UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit was created to deal with environmental
emergencies. The United Nations effort is particularly important as
politics lag behind in realizing the true challenges that lie ahead. Due
to the dark cloud of climate change, the necessity for properly respond-
ing to and handling environmental emergencies is ever growing. The
work of OCHA and UNEP is therefore an important and vivid example of
the advantages of multilateralism.
I congratulate the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit on its first 15
years as the primary United Nations mechanism to mobilize response
to environmental emergencies worldwide. Green Cross International
looks forward to continued close collaboration with the Unit and real-
izing the full spectrum of response to environmental emergencies.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the last President of the USSR and 1990 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, is the Founding President of Green Cross International
v
Foreword by Achim Steiner and John Holmes
Natural disasters, industrial accidents, conflicts and wars
draw the world’s attention through dramatic images
of destruction and human misery. Their impact on the
environment, however, often fails to make the headlines.
We hope that this publication will help illustrate the
important work done in preventing, preparing for and responding to
environmental emergencies, in order to prevent future suffering and loss.
Since its inception in 1994, the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit
has responded successfully to a wide range of environmental emergen-
cies around the globe, including industrial and technological accidents,
chemical and oil spills, forest fires and secondary impacts of natural
disasters. As a result, countries facing environmental emergencies and
natural disasters have benefited greatly from the joint assistance of UNEP
and OCHA at the times when they needed it most. With the help of other
important partners featured in this anniversary publication, the Joint
Environment Unit has also provided capacity building and training to a
large number of countries.
In the face of global challenges such as climate change, it becomes all
the more important to address environmental issues as an essential part
of humanitarian response. In response to increasing global awareness of
the environmental dimensions of crises, and to growing demand for the
services that address them, UNEP has identified Disasters and Conflicts
as one of six priority areas of work. Along with a greater understanding
of the role of the environment in humanitarian action, this inevitably
leads to higher expectations for the
Joint Unit, including expectations for
an even more effective cooperation
between the two organizations.
We must therefore work to improve
the global environmental emergency
response regime; for example, through greater awareness, greater capacity,
more partnerships and learning the lessons from past emergencies.
With this in mind, we hope that this publication celebrating 15 years
of successful multilateral environmental emergency response undertak-
en by the Joint Environment Unit and its partners will serve to highlight
the work done thus far and inspire increased action. Although we can
do little to prevent many disasters, we are capable of taking action to
prevent environmental emergencies from causing major loss of life and
livelihoods, both in the short and long term. Disaster risk reduction must
be an increasingly important part of all we do.
John Holmes, United Nations
Under-Secretary-General for
Humanitarian Affairs and
Emergency Relief Coordinator
Achim Steiner, United Nations
Under-Secretary-General and
Executive Director United Nations
Environment Programme
Achim Steiner John Holmes
v i
Acknowledgements and Dedication
This publication celebrates the collaborative nature of past, current
and future efforts to deal with environmental emergencies all around
the world. The staff of the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit wish to
thank the countries who have received assistance in an environmental
emergency for allowing others to learn from their experience. Likewise,
we acknowledge the generous efforts made by the providing countries,
who may one day be on the receiving side themselves.
Many people and organizations have contributed considerable time,
effort and ideas to help make this publication representative of past mul-
tilateral response to environmental emergencies. We would like to extend
our sincere thanks to everyone who has given an interview or provided
other information, editing or specific advice. Our cooperation and part-
nership with all of you help us to make continuous improvements.
Special thanks go to Vladimir Sakharov, Chief of the Joint Environment
Unit, who has been at the forefront of refining the disaster response
mechanism from the days of the United Nations Centre for Urgent
Environmental Assistance, the predecessor to the Joint Environment Unit.
Without his institutional memory and longstanding commitment to
environmental emergency response work, this publication would not be
what it is. We also wish to extend a special appreciation to our colleagues
at UNEP and OCHA for successful collaborative efforts to date.
This publication is dedicated to the memory of Gerard Le Claire, a
United Nations disaster response professional who played a pivotal role
in shaping the United Nations response to environmental emergencies
and establishing the Joint Environment Unit.
Gerard was tragically killed in a helicopter crash in Mongolia in 2000
during a United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination mis-
sion. The accident also claimed the lives of several other United Nations
personnel.
In homage to a respected environmentalist and humanitarian, the Ge-
rard Le Claire Environmental Trust Fund (http://www.gerardleclairetrust.org)
was established to further his ideals. As Gerard once wrote: “The environ-
ment is not just green fields; it is everything we live in, use and produce.
What we see, feel, smell and breathe is the environment”.
1
Introduction
“Disasters and conflicts can impact the environment in ways
that threaten human life, health, livelihoods and security.
Disaster managers and humanitarian workers must therefore
identify and address acute environmental risks quickly and
consistently as an integral part of effective emergency response.”
John Holmes, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator
during the 1980s and early 1990s confirmed feelings among the public
and governments that there was an urgent need for change (see boxes
on following pages).
Calls for an international mechanism to respond to environmental
emergencies were finally answered in 1993, when United Nations Mem-
ber States formally requested a new mechanism to deal specifically with
the environmental aspects of disasters. With the establishment of the
Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit – a partnership between the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) – many needs from both
requesting and providing countries were met.
Environmental emergencies – oil spills, pollution of rivers with toxic
chemicals, explosions at factories – are associated with sensational
media headlines and mass public protests. And for good reason. Their
effects can be devastating and long-lasting, and it is the world’s respon-
sibility to prevent them where possible and deal with them quickly when
they occur.
Until the 1990s, international response to industrial accidents dealt
with them largely on an ad hoc and bilateral basis. But as the scale of
industry has increased and public awareness of the damaging effects of
industrial accidents has grown, so the volume of calls for a more coordi-
nated response system has risen. Several large-scale accidents occurring
2
Large-scale forest fires endanger lives, have a huge impact on the environment, and contribute to global warming
© Johann Goldammer/GFMC
3 December 1984: Bhopal, India
In the early hours of the morning, people woke up to the sounds of screams and the sensation of intense burning in their eyes, noses and mouths. Running outside, they found themselves surrounded by a thick, choking cloud of gas. Whole neighbourhoods fled in panic; children were trampled and their parents convulsed and fell dead in the streets.
The accident happened at the Union Carbide Plant, near the city of Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh. More than 20,000 people required hospital treatment for terrible side effects, including blindness and kidney and liver failure. Government figures put the final death toll at almost 4,000 but other sources estimate that between 8,000 and 10,000 died within the first 72 hours and a further 10,000 later on from gas-related diseases.
Frequently cited as the world’s worst industrial disaster, the tragedy was caused by the release of a highly toxic cloud of methyl isocyanate, used to make the pesticide carbaryl. A valve in the plant’s underground storage tank had broken under pressure, exposing around half a million people to the gas. The factory was closed immediately after the accident and three senior members of staff arrested.
Cost-cutting measures at the plant are said to have com-promised safety standards. The effects of the accident were compounded by a lack of local awareness and preparation planning. In 1989 Union Carbide paid the Indian Government US$470 million in a compensation settlement.
3
I n t r o d u c t i o n
International collaboration was a key factor in minimizing the environmental impact of a large oil spill on the coast of South Korea in 2007
© Olof Linden
26 April 1986: Chernobyl, Soviet Union
When the number four reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine exploded, it released 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and caused a fire that burned for nine days.
Engineers on the night shift had been conducting an experiment to find out if the cooling pump system could function efficiently under low power. However, by removing too many control rods they allowed the reactor core to overheat and at 1.24 a.m., two explosions blew away the reactor’s dome-shaped roof.
Because the reactor was not housed in a reinforced concrete shell, as is standard practice in most countries, the building sustained severe damage and large quantities of radioactive debris were released into the atmosphere. Much of the fallout was deposited close to Chernobyl in parts of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, but traces of radioactive depos-its were found in nearly every country in the northern hemisphere. More than 100,000 people were evacuated from the nearby town of Pripyat and the surrounding area.
Over 200 people were affected by acute radiation sickness and almost 30 of them died within three months of the explosion. Since the accident, there has been a sharp increase in thyroid cancer among local people, particularly among those who were children or adolescents at the time. Environmental contamination with caesium and strontium means it could be as many as 200 years before the area surrounding the power plant can be used again for agriculture or industry. The reactor itself will remain highly radioactive for around 20,000 years.
Reviews of the disaster have concluded that a potentially unstable reactor design, poor and inadequate safety features, poorly trained operators, and the lack of a contain-ment building all played their part. It was felt that the underlying vulnerabilities and flaws in the Soviet nuclear industry that set the stage for the tragedy had been developing for as long as 35 years. Furthermore, international response to the disaster was hampered by a lack of information.
4
The Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit represents a single entry
point, including a 24/7 duty system with dedicated telephone and fax lines
for requesting assistance to environmental emergencies. Through the Joint
Environment Unit, countries can find out which services are being provid-
ed by others, thereby avoiding duplication and optimizing effectiveness of
aid. Cooperation between the two United Nations agencies complements
their specific specialities and was a unique situation at the time.
In 2009, the Joint Environment Unit celebrated its fifteenth anniversary,
offering an opportunity to draw attention to the importance of multilateral
cooperation in preparing for and responding to environmental emergen-
cies.
This publication, which highlights success stories and lessons learned,
is aimed at a wide audience. The intent is to further raise awareness of the
devastation that an environmental emergency can cause, and to promote
advocacy and action in response. It also aims to highlight the strong need
to integrate humanitarian and environmental action.
Chapter 1 introduces the key players in the field of environmental
emergencies and describes the development of the United Nations
international response mechanism. The following three chapters high-
light international responses to some of the many emergencies that have
occurred as a result of industrial accidents, natural disasters and conflict
situations over the past 15 years. Chapter 5 looks at some of the lessons
that have been learned from environmental emergency response work,
and how these have influenced changes in disaster response efforts and
management. And the final chapter looks briefly at what is perhaps the
greatest challenge affecting response and preparedness activities in the
future: climate change.
1 November 1986: Schweizerhalle, Switzerland
People living along the Rhine had a terrible shock when a fire broke out at the Sandoz chemical plant at Schweizerhalle, near Basel. Because there were no retention reservoirs, water used by fire fighters to put out the blaze flushed huge quanti-ties of agricultural chemicals, pesticides and dyestuffs into the river, sparking an ecological catastrophe. The river ran red, thousands of dead fish floated on the surface, and eels were totally wiped out. The effects were felt along the Rhine as far away as the Netherlands.
Although local residents were largely untouched, other than by the foul-smelling cloud of chemicals emanating from the fire, there was a delay in raising the alarm downstream, and pictures of the disaster were broadcast around the world. Occurring just a few months after the Chernobyl accident, the disaster severely damaged the image of the Swiss chemical industry as immune to such catastrophes.
As a direct consequence of the disaster, significant progress has been made in efforts to prevent a similar event. These include legal regulations and controls on the chemi-cal industry as well as chemical and biological monitoring of water quality. Moreover, willingness for international coopera-tion in river water management and protection has grown considerably.
5
I n t r o d u c t i o n
Cyclone Indlala, which hit Madagascar in April 2007, caused extensive flooding and travel was possible only by boat
© Hassan Partow/UNEP
21 January 1991: Persian Gulf
In August 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, sparking the first Gulf War. By the following February, coalition forces, drawn from 34 nations (with United Nations authorization), had been successful in restoring Kuwaiti sovereignty, but the conflict caused widespread devastation with explosions, fires and spillage of millions of tons of crude oil.
The worst incident happened on 21 January 1991, when Iraqi forces opened valves at the Sea Island oil terminal and dumped oil from several tankers into the Persian Gulf. The apparent strategic goal was to foil a potential landing by US Marines. Estimates of the volume spilled range from 160 to 1750 million litres; the slick reached a maximum size of 160 by 68 kilometres and was 13 centimetres thick. Despite the uncertainty surrounding the size of the spill, figures place it 5 to 27 times the size (in volume spilled) of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.
The Persian Gulf oil spill decimated marine invertebrate, fish, seabird and other wildlife populations, especially in the areas surrounding Iraq and Kuwait. The oil moved southward, ending up on the north coast of Saudi Arabia, where it smoth-ered the fragile mangrove forests, destroying miles of valuable wildlife habitats. Effects of the accident were exacerbated by delays in response and a lack of local experience.
1
A father holds his injured child and surveys the damaged city of Balakot, Pakistan, following a major earthquake in 2005 © Edward Parsons/IRIN
7
Dealing with disasters: Developing an international response system
Every day, disasters threaten human life and welfare somewhere in the world.
They may be natural disasters – floods, droughts, hurricanes, earthquakes,
landslides and forest fires – or they may be man-made accidents, involving
chemical releases and oil spills. Conflict and war also create disasters. Not only
do disasters kill people, they also wreck people’s health, property and liveli-
hoods, and can have severe and long-lasting impacts on the environment.
In many developing countries, the rate of industrial growth has outpaced
the government’s ability to cope with disaster. People living in these coun-
tries are highly vulnerable to the effects of an environmental emergency;
when one occurs, international help is often needed. This trend, along with
continuing land degradation, climate change and increasing use of chemi-
cals, is putting more and more people at risk and highlights the need for
a strong international response system, both now and in the foreseeable
future.
So what is an environmental emergency? What happens when disaster
strikes? And how does the international response system work?
What is an environmental emergency?
A major spill of lethal cyanide into Romanian rivers in 2000; a devastating
earthquake in South Asia in 2005; an oil spill caused by the bombing of the
Jiyeh power plant in Lebanon in 2006: these diverse events have in com-
mon their potential to cause an environmental emergency. They typify the
three main types of environmental emergency – technological or man-made
disasters usually resulting from an industrial accident; natural disasters
caused by elements such as earthquakes, floods and fires; and complex
emergencies resulting from conflict and war.
Natural disasters can have negative impacts on the environment, potentially causing environmental emergencies. In July 2009, floods affecting Cotonou, Benin caused an oil leak at the central electricity power station. Given the porous soil in the area, the drinking water drawn from an aquifer just below the surface was likely to have been affected.
© Matthew Conway/OCHA
8
C h a p t e r 1
An environmental emergency is the sudden onset of a disaster or an
accident as a result of natural, technological or human-induced factors
that cause – or threaten to cause – severe environmental damage.
People’s health, livelihoods and property are often endangered at the
same time. Environmental emergencies can also represent ‘secondary
risks’: natural and complex emergencies can damage infrastructure and
industrial installations, and this in turn may affect the environment, as
well as the health and safety of the population and emergency workers.
endangers not only the environment, but threatens to feed back into
a worse humanitarian disaster. The humanitarian and environmental
aspects of emergency response are inextricably linked.
Nonetheless, for many years environmental issues took a back seat to
the humanitarian response to emergencies. Responders tended to think
of environmental problems as longer-term green issues – something to
be dealt with later – without considering the way the environment can
have an immediate effect on people’s lives.
Keeping the environment on the agenda in the midst of an emergen-
cy is a tough job that the world is gradually coming to recognize.
A global response system
The Chernobyl nuclear disaster and other environmental emergencies fo-
cused global attention on the seriousness of this threat. Mikhail Gorbachev,
then President of the Soviet Union, formally requested the United Nations
General Assembly to establish an appropriate United Nations centre to deal
specifically with environmental emergencies. Several organizations and
countries including the European Union, Germany, Russia, Switzerland and
Scandinavian countries lent their support to his request.
Vladimir Sakharov is Deputy Chief of the Emergency Services Branch of
OCHA and Chief of the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit. He has been
involved in environmental response work for over 20 years. “The Member
States recognized that something was missing from the United Nations
because no-one was taking care of this huge area,” he explains. “At the time,
the focus of emergency response was on humanitarian aspects, and there
were no mechanisms or resources available for the environmental impacts
of disasters.”
As a result, in 1992 the United Nations Centre for Urgent Environ-
mental Assistance was set up in Geneva on an experimental basis, with
The humanitarian
and environmental
aspects of emergency
response are
inextricably linked
Environmental emergencies lie on the border between an environ-
mental crisis and a humanitarian disaster. A natural disaster such as an
earthquake can have a huge humanitarian impact – deaths and injuries,
houses ruined, crops and livestock destroyed. At the same time, there
may be severe environmental consequences: landslides and floods
endanger survivors and rescuers alike, while debris and waste create
environmental and health hazards. Access routes may be blocked, delay-
ing the arrival of food and supplies, and slowing the economic recovery
of affected areas in the longer term. An environmental emergency
9
D e a l i n g w i t h d i s a s t e r s : D e v e l o p i n g a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s y s t e m
support from the European Commission and Switzerland in addition to
various other countries. As a first step, the Centre reviewed the interna-
tional response to major environmental emergencies over the previous
10 years. The exercise revealed significant gaps in response mechanisms
and identified ways to improve international arrangements.
Sakharov describes the early learning process. “We studied several
large technological, industrial and man-made emergencies – Chernobyl,
Bhopal, Schweizerhalle and the environmental impacts of the Gulf con-
flict – to review international responses and learn from what happened.
We also considered whether and how to build a roster of international
expertise that we could call on in case of an emergency. However, gov-
ernments advised us that while this was easy to build, it would be almost
impossible to keep up-to-date and use, and anyway, each disaster is so
About OCHA and UNEP
In 1998, the United Nations Department for Humanitarian Affairs was transformed into the United Nations Office for the Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). This organiza-tion plays the leading role in the coordination and manage-ment of activities relating to disaster response in the United Nations system, in particular through its Emergency Services Branch based in Geneva.
Within the United Nations system, the United Nations Envi-ronment Programme (UNEP) is the voice of the environment. UNEP’s work in the area of emergency response is coordinat-ed by OCHA through the Joint Environment Unit. UNEP also deals with longer-term environmental programmes that may follow on from environmental emergency response work.
The work of the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit is complemented by that of UNEP’s Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch. This branch investigates the environ-mental consequences of conflicts, determines the environ-mental impacts of refugee movement, and proposes solutions for clean-up and environmental activities in the post-conflict period.
Vladimir Sakharov, Chief of the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit and Deputy Chief of OCHA’s Emergency Services Branch working in Guinea in 2001
© OCHA
different, the type of expertise you need is very specific indeed. We have
thus established a system where in case of disaster, we ask our partner
countries to make specialized experts available.”
1 0
C h a p t e r 1
The experimental stage highlighted the need for a special interna-
tional mechanism to respond to environmental emergencies. To prevent
a proliferation of disaster reponse mechanisms, the Governments want-
ed to integrate UNEP’s environmental expertise into the Department
of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA). The already established United Nations
Centre for Urgent Environmental Assistance (UNCUEA) was transformed
into the Joint UNEP/DHA Environment Unit, hosted by DHA’s Disaster
Response Branch in Geneva. After endorsement by the Committee of
Permanent Representatives to UNEP, the Joint Environment Unit became
operational on 1 July 1994.
A logical partnership
Reflecting the crossovers between humanitarian and environmental
aspects of emergencies, the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit takes
advantage of the emergency response coordination infrastructure that
exists in OCHA and pairs it with the technical and scientific environmen-
tal expertise available within UNEP. It therefore provides a comprehen-
sive response to environmental emergencies that maximizes the use of
resources and minimizes duplication of effort.
Franklin Thévenaz, Deputy Permanent Representative of Switzer-
land to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and World Food
Programme (WFP) in Rome, believes this is “a logical partnership: UNEP
has the environmental knowledge, while OCHA brings its operational
expertise”. Rudolph Müller, Deputy Director of OCHA’s Coordination
and Response Division in New York agrees: “The Joint Environment Unit
was a logical step in broadening our capacity to address environmental
emergencies. The United Nations Disaster Relief Office (UNDRO) had
established links already, but these had been largely forgotten; the United
Unique international forum for environmental emergency response
The international response to environmental emergencies is provided by a wide range of governmental, non-governmen-tal and international organizations. The Advisory Group on En-vironmental Emergencies (AGEE), established in 1995, brings together disaster managers and environmental experts from governments, United Nations agencies, non-governmental organizations and civil society to share ideas and exchange experiences on global environmental emergency response issues. AGEE also reviews the Joint Environment Unit’s work, advises on its future activities, and acts as its main source of accountability. In return, the Joint Environment Unit acts as the Secretariat for AGEE.
Nations had prepared strategies for responding to humanitarian results of
industrial accidents but not the environmental aspects.”
In the early years, the Joint Environment Unit focused exclusively on
responding to technological emergencies. During this period there were
many instances when offers of assistance were not accepted (although
they may have been useful), perhaps because the authorities did not
want to release information or appear to admit culpability for an indus-
trial accident. Over the years the Unit’s focus has gradually widened to
include other forms of environmental emergency, especially after a major
earthquake hit the Izmit Province of Turkey in August 1999 (see page 38).
1 1
D e a l i n g w i t h d i s a s t e r s : D e v e l o p i n g a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s y s t e m
“After the Turkey earthquake we realized that governments were
much more willing to request assistance for environmental emergencies
when the cause was a natural disaster,” says Vladimir Sakharov. “In these
cases there is a perception that nobody is to blame. Although of course,
it is never the earthquake that kills people and damages the environ-
ment; nine times out of ten the fault lies with badly designed infrastruc-
ture and poor planning of building development.”
The earthquake in Izmit also prompted better integration of the Joint
Environment Unit’s activities into the wider disaster management struc-
ture of OCHA. “In the early years, the JEU was really working in parallel
with OCHA, but now response activities are much more integrated,” says
Patricia Charlebois, Environmental Affairs Officer at the Joint Environ-
ment Unit (2000–2004) and now Head of the Pollution Response Section,
Marine Environment Division at the International Maritime Organization.
“The Joint Environment Unit staff worked actively to effect this change
and became more integrated into emergency systems through active
engagement in large disaster missions such as that following the Turkey
earthquake.”
What happens when an environmental emergency strikes?
When disaster strikes, the situation on the ground is often chaotic
and overwhelming. There is very little information available about the
disaster itself, the location, how many people have been affected and
where they are. It is often unclear who is in charge of the response and
what capacity they have to deal with the emergency. Humanitarian
relief workers are often dispatched within hours of a disaster, but they
do not know what situation they will encounter on the ground. In an
environmental emergency, there are significant dangers to relief workers
as well as to the local people, particularly where there is a risk that toxic
substances have been released. Information is key – and usually lacking.
In support of these first emergency responders, the main priority is
the identification of major environmental impacts and risks: the ‘big and
obvious’ sites that could create a life-threatening situation. Oil refineries
and chemical manufacturing sites both pose risks of severe environ-
mental contamination if damaged. The immediate priority is to identify
where these sites are and get personnel on the ground to assess whether
they have been damaged and what risk they pose. This phase calls for
‘environmental generalists’ – people who can look at a wide range of
environmental issues, from chemical pollution of a river to the threat of a
Rescue teams dig out a town buried by mudslides following Typhoon Morakot in August 2009
© Sawyer Mars
1 2
C h a p t e r 1
landslide engulfing a village, and who can decide which ones need most
attention.
And so, information gradually starts to flow. The situation becomes
clearer and the next level of priorities can be decided. Specialists, such
as chemists, waste management experts, geologists or engineers, can
be sent to the area to make specific site assessments. This is the second
phase of the emergency response (as shown in the following diagram).
Making connections
When a disaster occurs, the first response usually comes from local and national sources. The affected communities themselves often start the relief effort, simply because there is nobody else to help during the first hours or even days. National civil protection agencies and national emergency responders frequently take on the bulk of the immediate relief work.
But dealing with the environmental impacts of a major disaster sometimes requires a level of technical expertise that is beyond the capacity of individual countries. Governments must often resort to requesting expertise and resources internationally to supplement their own capabilities. In many cases, this is done bilaterally: individual countries provide assistance directly to the affected country. For many countries this is a preferred channel, building on their historical links and on-going relations. In some cases, the Joint Environment Unit is involved in broker-ing this bilateral assistance, putting affected countries directly in touch with donors who have the right expertise.
In the case of multilateral assistance, the Joint Environment Unit plays a key role in facilitating the international response to environmental emergencies. As an integral part of both UNEP and OCHA, the Joint Environment Unit is able to tap into these bodies’ regional offices, which act as the eyes and ears on the ground, rapidly identifying emergency situations as they occur and providing on-going situation reports. Other information sources and the media are also monitored to spot poten-tial emergencies.
Together with national agencies and often the military, they can begin to
identify the short-term needs for immediate action, and to consider the
longer-term plans that will help restore infrastructure, avoid future risks,
and allow people to resume their lives.
The recovery and rehabilitation phase is, of course, the longest.
Once the disaster response is over, the emergency specialists hand over
their assessments, plans and proposals to the national authorities and
international development agencies. As the response to the emergency
Phase 1
Identification of major
environmental impacts
?
Phase 3
Integration of environmental
issues into recovery /
rehabilitation activities
Phase 2Specialized experts and equipment deployed to
address problems identified in
Phase 1
!Sudden on-set
disasterEmergency phase Recovery / rehabilitation
(medium–longer term)
1 3
D e a l i n g w i t h d i s a s t e r s : D e v e l o p i n g a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s y s t e m
itself becomes part of national development programmes, there is a real
opportunity to ‘build back better’ – such as homes that won’t collapse
in an earthquake, oil storage installations that withstand flooding, and
roads that are less susceptible to landslides.
A quick guide to environmental emergency response tools
It is a complex and highly pressured task that presents emergency re-
sponders, described by Arjun Katoch, Chief of OCHA’s Field Coordination
Support Section, as “a high-pressure cauldron”. By this, he means they
face the challenges of sudden, overwhelming needs, damaged infra-
structure and communications, and degradation of local capacity due to
casualties and stress.
Emergency relief workers need to make a quick assessment of a po-
tentially dangerous situation on the basis of very little information. They
cannot rely on support or services to be available: water and food may be
limited, transport and communications disrupted, and monitoring and
sampling equipment unavailable. Over the years the Joint Environment
Unit has worked with many United Nations and national organizations
to contribute to existing systems, and to develop new tools that support
emergency responders in their work.
The UNDAC systemIn the immediate aftermath of a disaster, national and local govern-
ments are often overwhelmed. In this initial stage, the government of the
affected country can ask for assistance from a United Nations Disaster
Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC) team. These teams are assembled
and administered by OCHA’s Field Coordination Support Section, and are
made up of disaster management professionals from a range of sectors,
Operating around the clock, the Joint Environment Unit can be reached 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all year round. At the same time, the Unit can put affected countries in contact with donors willing to provide response resources, and the release of OCHA Emergency Cash Grants can be arranged in certain circum-stances to meet immediate emergency response needs.
Once the need for specialist skills has been identified, the Joint Environment Unit calls on its network of donors and contacts to find and deploy suitable experts as soon as possible. Throughout the emergency phase, the Unit also works closely with UNEP’s Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch (PCDMB) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), helping smooth the way for the transition from an emergency phase to a recovery phase.
In recent years, a growing number of developing countries have focused on building their own environmental emergency response capacity. Better emergency preparedness ensures that governments are ready to deal with an environmental emergency, with appropriate procedures in place and equipment accessible. With the help of an environmental emergency preparedness mission from the Joint Environment Unit, a country can assess its needs and priorities at strategic, mana-gerial and operational levels. Since 2005, the Unit has conducted preparedness missions in, Iran, Kuwait, Turkey and the Republic of Yemen, and has also supported OCHA’s preparedness activities in Cambodia, Côte d’Ivoire, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Papua New Guinea and others. With the Joint Environment Unit’s integra-tion into OCHA’s Emergency Preparedness Section in 2008, the Unit has further increased its emergency preparedness activities.
1 4
C h a p t e r 1
who are seconded by donor governments, as well as by OCHA, UNDP, the
World Food Programme, the United Nations Children’s Fund and the World
Health Organization. In many emergency situations, UNDAC teams have
been identified and deployed within hours of a disaster. Their task is to
make a rapid assessment of the situation and prioritize needs, and to sup-
port the national authorities and the United Nations country teams in the
coordination of international relief.
UNDAC teams were first deployed during the Indonesian forest fires
in 1995, and have since become an important tool for inter-agency
response to environmental emergencies. While UNDAC teams deal with
issues ranging from healthcare to landslides, environmental issues have
gradually been given more prominence. Alongside the medical, food aid
and other specialists, the UNDAC teams can often include an ‘environ-
mental generalist’, whose job it is to identify and assess environmental
threats and to call for specialist help where needed.
Since its inception, UNEP has been a member of UNDAC and a num-
ber of UNEP staff members have been trained, ready to be deployed with
the UNDAC teams. In 2008, Sweden supported the training of a further
15 associate environmental experts, effectively doubling the standby
environmental capacity of the UNDAC system.
Hazard Identification ToolIn the early stages of an emergency response, relief workers may be
dispatched ‘blind’ to the affected area. Often very little information is
available about the hazards they are likely to face and the first job for an
environmental expert is to identify what installations and infrastructure
exist, where they are, and what hazards they may pose both to emer-
gency relief workers and to the resident community.
This job can be made easier and quicker if the locations of such instal-
lations are known before the UNDAC team arrives. Together with the
Flash Environmental Assessment Tool (FEAT), the Joint Environment Unit
developed the Hazard Identification Tool (HIT). This is usually applied
to a region at the first sign that a disaster is occurring, triggered by the
UNDAC stand-by alert message. By the time the UNDAC team arrives in
the field, the initial hazard identification can be complete. “HIT is based
on the methodology of the Flash Environmental Assessment Tool and
provides a first screening of an actual situation from a distance, ” says
Sander van Dijk, Environmental Expert and Dutch UNDAC member.
After an industrial accident,
relief workers may be faced with
the release of hundreds, or even
thousands, of different chemicals
and it is easy to overlook or
misjudge important risks
Using remotely available information sources, the HIT helps the opera-
tor to draw up a list of known secondary environmental risks in the area,
including large infrastructure, nuclear facilities, hazardous waste storage
sites and other industrial facilities. The tool also lists the hazardous chemi-
cals known or likely to be present, such as ammonia, chlorine, cleaning
agents, cyanide, crude oil or fuel, solvents and pesticides. The result is a
technical list of the known and probable hazards in the affected area that
1 5
D e a l i n g w i t h d i s a s t e r s : D e v e l o p i n g a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s y s t e m
might pose a threat to people or the environment, and that need to be
checked on the ground to verify their status. To make the information use-
ful to non-specialists within the humanitarian response, estimated impacts
on people and the environment are given in non-technical language.
Although the UNDAC teams are the primary audience for the HIT, the as-
sessment is shared with other emergency responders in the affected area.
The HIT has great potential for use in the context of preparedness
activities. If hazards were identified before an emergency occurred,
the information would be immediately available to help responders
focus their attention on the relevant sites even more quickly. Kenya and
Sweden thus agreed to undertake a joint pilot project to map industrial
installations and large infrastructure installations, such as dams, airports
and port facilities in Kenya. A replication of these efforts in other coun-
tries could contribute significantly to the prevention or mitigation of
environmental emergencies.
Flash Environmental Assessment ToolEnvironmental emergencies have the potential to release a myriad of
hazardous materials into the environment. After an industrial accident,
for example, relief workers may be faced with the release of hundreds, or
even thousands, of different chemicals, each with its own toxicity profile,
exposure pathway (through the air, water or soil) and receptors (humans,
livestock or fish, for example). In such complex situations it is easy to
overlook or misjudge important risks. At the same time, the overwhelming
demands of disaster situations make a fully fledged environmental assess-
ment impractical. What first responders need is an accurate yet simple tool
that can be used in the field.
Introduced in 2008, the Flash Environmental Assessment Tool or FEAT
is a user-friendly, ‘first aid’ manual that helps responders identify and
prioritize environmental risks. The manual that is available on the Internet,
“The strong involvement of
numerous countries in the
development of response tools
such as the Flash Environmental
Assessment Tool and the
Environmental Assessment
Module has led to substantial
progress in strengthening the
international system to respond
to environmental emergencies.”
Chris Dijkens, Head of Crisis Management of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment of the Netherlands
1 6
C h a p t e r 1
balances simplicity with scientific rigour, and provides quick answers in
complex disaster situations, even when specialized technical resources
and expertise are not available.
Sander van Dijk, UNDAC Environmental Expert, was in charge of the
team at the Netherlands National Public Institute for Environment and
Public Health that developed the tool in the wake of the Indian Ocean
earthquake and tsunami in 2004. “The Flash Environmental Assessment
Tool was developed because there was no uniform methodology for
rapid post-disaster assessments,” he explains. “Individual experts were
dispatched with their own background and speciality, which might range
from very chemical to very ecological. With basic training, the tool allows
an UNDAC team member to know what questions to ask and whether they
need to call for more expert advice.”
Environmental Assessment Module Imagine a fire in an oil refinery. A dense plume of black smoke rises into
the air and is carried by the wind. Oil tanks rupture and spill. The wastewa-
ter treatment plant fails and oily residues escape, washed into the sea by
fire fighters’ hoses. Which toxins escaped? Where exactly did they go? How
far was the smoke carried before it dropped its polluting load? Did it fall in
farmers’ fields – or on a drinking water supply?
While other tools can point to the risks, only sampling and analysis can
provide concrete answers to these questions. And in the aftermath of a
disaster, local laboratories are likely to be damaged or overwhelmed. In
environmental emergencies, specialist equipment and skilled operators
are needed, on the spot, and equipped to work independently of local
services.
To fill this hole in the environmental emergency response capability, the
Netherlands Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, and
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, developed the Environmental Assessment
Module. This mobile laboratory consists of two fully equipped, off-road
vehicles that can be used in emergencies involving hazardous substances. It
is designed to allow rapid assessment of environmental contamination and
related health effects. The module provides sampling, detection and on-site
analysis of toxic compounds; and allows rapid scientific interpretation of
data, and conversion of those data into an exposure or risk assessment that
can be used by national authorities and response organizations.
The Netherlands’ Environmental Assessment Module being tested during a training exercise in Sweden and Norway in 2008
© René Nijenhuis/OCHA
1 7
D e a l i n g w i t h d i s a s t e r s : D e v e l o p i n g a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s y s t e m
Different parts – or all – of the module can be transported, depend-
ing on the demand for the various sampling, measurement and analysis
options. Three or four staff can accompany the module, backed up by
personal safety equipment, communication and power-generating tools,
and facilities for data processing and transfer. All equipment can be
stored in dedicated aluminium boxes for safe transportation to the af-
fected site. The boxes can be transported by air using commercial flights
or an aircraft from the Netherlands Ministry of Defence, or by land in the
two four-wheel drive vehicles if the emergency occurs within Europe.
Awareness and Preparedness for Emergencies at Local Level (APELL) programmeThe international community and national governments have learned
to respond more effectively to environmental emergencies over the
past decades. Increasingly, the focus is now shifting to preparing for
disasters before they occur. With support and funding from UNEP and
industry, the APELL programme aims to do just that: on the one hand,
providing information to communities to help them understand local
risks, and on the other, helping local and national authorities to put
together a coordinated plan to protect people, their property and the
environment in the event of a disaster.
While the main focus of the programme is on environmental emer-
gencies related to industrial activities with potential for fire, explosion or
toxic release, it is also relevant to natural disaster preparedness. So far,
it has been used to improve the coordination of emergency response
services in both local and cross-border situations. See Chapter 4 for more.
National Focal PointsIn close consultation with the Advisory Group on Environmental
Emergencies (AGEE), the Joint Environment Unit established the global
network of officially designated National Focal Points, which allow the Unit to
maintain efficient links between potential donor and recipient coun-
tries. This global network of significantly placed individuals is poised to
provide the Unit with critical information on the nature of the emer-
gency, together with supporting incoming assistance.
Building capacity for environmental emergency response
National governments hold the primary responsibility for preparing for,
and responding to environmental emergencies. When a disaster hap-
pens, the speed and effectiveness of the response is largely dictated by
the national government’s ability to manage resources and organize
the response. There is much that governments – and local authorities
– can do to plan for such an event, ensuring for example that everyone
knows their role and responsibility, the chain of command, and what to
do if communications break down.
Donors also need guidance on the most effective way to support
another country that has been affected by a disaster. How can they
ensure they are ready to provide support, and how do they mobilize
the right response professionals quickly enough? To help develop this
capacity among both potential recipients and donors of environmental
emergency assistance, the Joint Environment Unit and its partners have
developed a number of guidelines (these are available on the Unit’s
website: http://ochaonline.un.org/ochaunep).
Guidelines for Environmental Emergencies f : provides guidance for
donor and recipient countries on their roles and responsibili-
ties in response to environmental emergencies. The Guidelines
cover the phases of preparedness, alerts, offer and request of
assistance, receipt and provision, as well as post-mission.
1 8
C h a p t e r 1
Guidelines for the Development of a National Environmental Contin- f
gency Plan and Establishing a National Environmental Emergency
Response Mechanism: describe options for establishing national
structures to coordinate resources and expertise in response to
environmental emergencies. A sample National Environmental
Contingency Plan shows how these might be used in practice.
Guidelines for Environmental Assessment Following Chemical f
Accidents: can be used as an emergency assessment tool to help
competent national authorities or international experts gather data
on the ground. This allows the Joint Environment Unit and possible
donor countries to decide on the exact type of assistance needed.
Guiding Principles for Chemical Accident Prevention, Preparedness and f
Response: prepared under the umbrella of the Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD), this sets out guid-
ance for the planning, construction, operation and safety review of
hazardous installations, with the aim of preventing accidents.
Training coursesExperts deployed in the aftermath of an environmental emergency need
to hit the ground running. An effective international response relies on
the availability of well-trained experts, who understand the emergency
response process and are familiar with the tools and resources available
to back them up. Arriving in a new country in the midst of an emergency
is not the moment to learn.
To support the streamlining and increasing professionalism of the
international response system led by the Joint Environment Unit, envi-
ronmental experts from donor countries are encouraged to participate in
a training course on environmental emergency response. The course was
developed by the Government of the Netherlands, in close collabora-
tion with the Government of Sweden, and piloted in August 2008 in the
Netherlands. The curriculum covered a wide range of issues including
the United Nations response system, safety and security, information and
stress management, and cultural awareness, as well as tools such as the
Flash Environmental Assessment Tool, the Hazard Identification Tool and
the Environmental Assessment Module.
As Leif Jönsson, Head of the Regional Desk for Western, Eastern and
Southern Africa at the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, notes: “Most
environmental experts deployed with the UNDAC teams need training in
deployment and how to work in a disaster zone, not in the environmen-
tal aspects.”
From response to preparedness
As the following three chapters show, disasters occur with tragic regu-
larity around the world. The response to environmental emergencies
often comes from a huge range of groups: local communities, local and
national authorities, foreign governments, the United Nations, non-gov-
ernmental organizations, and increasingly, corporate entities. In this con-
fusing melée, the Joint Environment Unit is the primary multilateral focal
point with a remit to mobilize and coordinate international responses to
environmental emergencies.
Over the past 15 years, the Joint Environment Unit has worked with
many international partners to develop tools, systems, training and co-
ordination mechanisms that make environmental emergency responses
more effective. The world will never be free from environmental emer-
gencies: natural forces are too strong to be contained, accidents will
happen, and conflict recurs. If anything, climate change and population
pressure will increase the danger. But with planning, preparation and
coordination, vulnerable countries can be ready to deal with disaster and
the international community can respond quickly and effectively.
1 9
D e a l i n g w i t h d i s a s t e r s : D e v e l o p i n g a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s y s t e m
MEXICOFloods 2007
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Hurricanes 2004
GRANADAHurricanes 2004
HAITIHurricanes 2008, Floods 2004
URUGUAYFloods 2007
LEBANONCrisis/Oil spill 2006MOROCCO
Inland oil spill 2003
MOZAMBIQUEFloods 2000
oPtCrisis 2009
CAMEROONLake Nyos potential dam collapse 2005
NIGERIAMunitions depot explosion 2002
BENINFloods 2009
COTE D’IVOIRE Dumping of toxicwaste 2006
MADAGASCARCyclones/Floods 2007
KENYAHazard identification 2008Fuel spill 1999
DJIBOUTIToxic spill 2002
YEMEN Response preparedness 2006
GEORGIAInguri dam 1997
ARMENIAPotential dam collapse 1997
SEYCHELLESTropical storm 2003 Heavy rain 1998
MALDIVESTsunami 2004
MYANMARCyclone Nargis 2008
CAMBODIAUNDAC response preparedness 2009
SRI LANKATsunami 2004
SUDANEnvironmental issues in resettlement camps (Darfur) 2004
SOMALIAAlleged hazardous waste 2005, 1997
TIMOR-LESTE Toxic spill/leaking container 2007
SAMOA ISLANDS REGIONEarthquake/tsunami 2009
TANZANIA Power outage 2008 (Zanzibar)Ground water pollution assessment 2004 (Pemba Island)
IRANResponse preparedness 2005 Drought 2000
PAKISTANSouth Asia earthquake 2005, Oil spill 2003
INDONESIASumatra earthquake 2009Cracked gas well/mud volcano 2006Dam integrity assessment 2006Yogyakarta earthquake 2006Mt. Merapi preparedness 2006Tsunami 2004Forest fires 1997, 1998, 2005
TURKEYResponse Preparedness 2007Izmit earthquake 1999Dumpsite collapse 1995
BURKINA FASOFloods 2009 PHILIPPINES
Tropical storms/floods 2009Capsized ferry 2008Oil spill 2006Payatas dumpsite collapse 2000Mine tailings spill 1996
RUSSIAN FEDERATION Forest fires 1998 Post-Chernobyl assessment 1997 Komi Republic inland oil spill 1995
MONGOLIAMining spill 2007
TAJIKISTAN UNDAC response preparedness 2006Dam and Lake Sarez assessment 1999
SERBIAKosovo forest fires 2007Kosovo phenol spill 2003Kosovo conflict 1999
MOLDOVAUnderground water pollution 1998
BELARUSPost-Chernobyl assessment 1997
HUNGARYCyanide spill 2000, Mining waste spill 2000
MONTENEGRODam collapse 1994
ALBANIAAmmunition storage explosion 2008,Pesticide storage 1994
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIAForest fires 2007
ROMANIACyanide spill 2000, Mining waste spill 2000
UKRAINEOil spill 2007, Post-Chernobyl assessment 1997,Sewage spillage 1996
CHINAChemical spill 2005
KYRGYZSTANToxic chemical spill 1998
REPUBLIC OF KOREAOil spill 2007
VIET NAM Forest fires 2002, Floods 2000
TAIWAN ISLAND (CHINA)Typhoon Morakot/landslides 2009
RWANDAPesticide storage fire 1995
SYRIAOil spill 2006 Dam collapse 2002
SURINAMEHydrogen sulphide cylinders 2007 Floods 2006
D.R. CONGO Earthquake 2008Uranium mine collapse 2004Nyiragongo volcanic eruption 2002
GUYANAFloods 2005 Toxic spill 1996
GUINEAFloods 2001
TURKS AND CAICOSHurricanes 2008
BRAZILForest fires 1998
PARAGUAYFloods 1998 Chemical damage 1998
GUATEMALAHurricane Stan 2005
ECUADORFloods 2008
BOLIVIAFloods 2008, 2002
CHILELoa river pollution 1997
PERUUNDAC response preparedness 2009 Earthquake 2007 Forest fires 2005
VENEZUELAMudslide and chemical spill 2000
HONDURASUNDAC response preparedness 2008Floods/landslides 2008Hurricane Felix 2007
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties. Created by UN OCHA VMU, 15 October 2009
Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit: Activities as of October 2009Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit: Activities as of October 2009
United Nations environmental experts on mission following the collapse of a former uranium mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 2004 © OCHA
2
2 1
Putting things right: Responding to technological emergencies
The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska was an
environmental emergency on the largest scale. Within a few days of
the tanker running aground, the oil had killed thousands of animals,
including 250,000 seabirds, 1,000 sea otters and 22 killer whales. Over
1,000 km of coastal habitat were affected, both by the oil and by the
pressure-washing techniques used to disperse it. Although the volume
of oil spilled (about 40 million litres) places this disaster some way down
the list of the world’s most serious oil pollution events, the effects of the
disaster were exacerbated by the remoteness of the location. Clean-up
teams had to travel by helicopter and boat, complicating the response
effort and severely stretching existing disaster management plans.
‘Classic’, man-made or technological environmental emergencies like
this one are generally caused by some kind of industrial accident. They
involve hazardous materials and can occur at any location where such
materials are produced, used or transported. In addition to oil spills and
other forms of water pollution, examples include explosions or other
accidental release of toxic substances from mines, chemical plants or
power plants. Deliberate dumping of toxic waste in remote locations also
occurs. Common locations for technological emergencies include oil and
chemical manufacturing and storage sites, mining waste and spoil heaps,
and any coastline vulnerable to an accident to shipping.
In addition to causing immediate environmental damage, techno-
logical disasters may also pose a danger to human health. They usually
require specific specialist knowledge as well as a coordinated response
among many different national and international agencies. Rapid indus-
trialization and introduction of new technologies in developing coun-
tries (which may lack the capacity to deal with disasters) is creating new
hazards and there is potential for the severity and frequency of this type
of disaster to increase as a result.
So what happens when a factory explodes or an oil tanker spills its
cargo? What are the particular challenges associated with this type of emer-
gency? This chapter describes international response missions to some of
the major technological emergencies addressed during the past 15 years,
highlighting the roles of the different response agencies and personnel.
Who knows what to do?
An often-underestimated challenge is the specificity of each disaster in-
volving hazardous materials. Innumerable toxic and harmful chemicals are
used globally in industrial processes, often requiring very specific technical
expertise to deal with them. In addition, in many developing countries, the
national operational response capacity – in particular when it comes to
on-site sampling and analysis – is often insufficient to cope with the needs
of an emergency. One of the benefits of the international response system
is that a wide network of professionals can be contacted quickly and an
expert with the appropriate skills deployed to the scene.
2 2
C h a p t e r 2
July 2004: Shinkolobwe, Democratic Republic of CongoEight people were killed and 13 seriously injured when
part of the Shinkolobwe uranium mine collapsed. The
accident sparked fears about the harmful consequences of
the mine’s exploitation on the environment and the local
population, while rumours of an illicit uranium trade and
child labour began to spread.
Located 35 km west of Likasi in the southern province
of Katanga, the Shinkolobwe mine was officially closed in
1961 following the country’s independence from Belgium.
It had been exploited for its uranium and radium deposits
between 1921 and 1959, and its uranium was used in the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. At the end of the
1990s, however, artisanal or informal exploitation of cop-
per and heterogenite (an ore containing cobalt) began to
grow as the world’s demand for cobalt increased. As a re-
sult, a mining village developed at Shinkolobwe, despite a
Presidential Decree prohibiting any artisanal mining there.
After the disaster, the Government evacuated the area,
forcibly closed the mine, and requested a full environmen-
tal assessment.
Responding to the request for international assistance
from the Minister for Solidarity and Humanitarian Affairs,
the Joint Environment Unit set up an inter-agency mis-
sion that included experts on mining (from France) and
the environment (provided by Switzerland), an expert on
radiological contamination (from the International Atomic
Energy Agency) and an environmental health professional
(from the World Health Organization), together with staff
Technological emergencies: the role of the international community
A technological emergency requires a rapid and multi-faceted response. National response capacity is often completely overwhelmed and this is where the Joint Environment Unit steps in, playing a key role in the mobiliza-tion and coordination of urgent international assistance. The exact nature of this support varies according to the type and scale of the emergency, the potential environmental impacts and the national capacity to respond to the situation.
In some cases, the international community simply provides monitor-ing and hazard identification rather than full-scale practical assistance. In others, the Joint Environment Unit needs to contact its network of partner countries to very quickly find an expert with the specific knowledge needed to deal with a particular hazardous substance. The value of multilateral and multi-agency assistance is a common theme demonstrated throughout this publication.
Over the years, the Joint Environment Unit has become involved increas-ingly in post-disaster issues and future hazard prevention measures, which in-clude educating stakeholders – particularly in developing countries – about potential hazards. Once again, this calls for coordination, collaboration and attention to finding exactly the right person or agency for the task in hand.
“One of the main issues is that in developing countries, hazardous waste is often not seen as a hazard – people are not aware and will collect and sell waste material in an unsafe way,” says Laurent Nicole, a consultant chemical engineer and specialist in occupational health and safety. “In post-disaster management and prevention work, it is therefore important to educate stakeholders – the government, relevant authorities, private sector and oth-ers – on the potential dangers.”
2 3
P u t t i n g t h i n g s r i g h t : R e s p o n d i n g t o t e c h n o l o g i c a l e m e r g e n c i e s
of UNEP, OCHA and the United Nations country mission team. The mission
team assessed the current state of the mine and evaluated the causes
of its partial collapse. Samples of water, soil and dust were analyzed in
Switzerland. Although the site had been evacuated and was devoid of any
activity, the expert team also evaluated environmental impacts, including
contamination by heavy metals, as well as humanitarian and health
concerns linked to mining activities and ionising radiation exposure.
The mission team found that the cause of the accident was hap-
hazard mining with no respect for safety regulations. The ground was
unstable due to unskilled excavation and poorly managed waste heaps.
The risk of further collapse, therefore, was very high. They found no
evidence to suggest that uranium had been exploited. The collapse
was not a result of a nuclear or radiological accident and, within the
enclosed perimeter of the mine, did not lead to increased exposure to
ionising radiation. However, they warned that future collapse could
lead to such a risk.
René Nijenhuis, Officer in Charge/Humanitarian Affairs Officer of the
Joint Environment Unit (who led the mission), says: “Because we had ex-
perts from several different disciplines within our team, we could look at
all aspects of the mine collapse, then provide the authorities with recom-
mendations on how to minimize environmental risks and enforce safety
standards better, protecting local people, especially the children.”
21 June 2008: Sibuyan Island, the PhilippinesRescue teams battled furious seas and high winds as they searched for
survivors after a ferry sank with 862 people aboard. The MV Princess of
the Stars had been allowed to sail despite the imminent approach of
Typhoon Fengshen because the vessel was deemed large enough to stay
afloat in the periphery of the storm. But Fengshen tragically made a sud-
den change of direction and headed directly for the ferry, pushing it onto
a coral reef and causing it to capsize about 3 km from Sibuyan Island.
Fewer than 60 passengers survived.
The Philippines Coast Guard and Navy, assisted by the US Navy, tried
to retrieve the bodies from the ship but operations were suspended on
28 June after it was discovered that the vessel was carrying a shipment of
Environmental experts take water samples near the village of Shinkolobwe, following the collapse of a former uranium mine
© OCHA
2 4
C h a p t e r 2
endosulfan (a toxic pesticide) and other chemicals in its cargo. Endosul-
fan is an organochlorine insecticide and its use is banned in the Euro-
pean Union (EU) and restricted in many other countries (including the
Philippines) due to its acute toxicity and high potential for bioaccumula-
tion and environmental contamination.
The Joint Environment Unit and the European Commission (EC) Moni-
toring and Information Centre began monitoring the accident through
media reports at the onset of the disaster. Jointly, they offered assistance
to assess and address issues related to the pesticides aboard the ship,
which was welcomed by the Philippine authorities.
On arrival in the Philippines, the first task of the team, which included
an ecotoxicologist and a marine chemist, was to gather, consolidate and
analyze available data regarding the secondary impacts of the chemicals
contained in the capsized ferry. On the basis of this information, the team
was able to evaluate on-going and planned response activities (national
and international). The assessment also focused on identifying gaps in
response activities and making recommendations on further possible
international assistance.
“Our team was able to support the national authorities in find-
ing out which chemicals and in what quantities were on board the
capsized ferry and whether they were leaking,” says Rune Berglind, a
Swedish ecotoxicologist and member of the joint expert team. “This
contributed to ensuring that impacts on the fishing grounds could be
mitigated.”
The team undertook on-site assessments on land and at sea, which
included surveying the wreck by plane. They had numerous meetings
and discussions with the relevant national agencies. While they noted
the successful efforts made to monitor the situation with regard to pos-
sible contamination of seawater by chemicals and oil, they also made
recommendations in a number of areas where improvements could
Typhoon Fengshen scattered debris along the shore of Sibuyan island, while many houses were damaged after being battered by huge waves
© Jason Gutierrez/IRIN
When the Princess of the Stars capsized in the Philippines in June 2008, it was carrying endosulfan, a toxic pesticide, amongst its cargo. This and other chemicals on board posed a threat to the rescue workers as well as to livelihoods in the coastal area
© Rune Berglind
2 5
P u t t i n g t h i n g s r i g h t : R e s p o n d i n g t o t e c h n o l o g i c a l e m e r g e n c i e s
be made. These concerned crisis organization (such as contingency
planning and the establishment of a command post), sampling and
monitoring (such as sampling procedures, analytical protocols and bio-
monitoring), and the next steps for the salvage operations (especially
contingency planning in the event of further damage to the vessel).
Transboundary emergencies need an international response
A spill of toxic chemicals will spread wherever the surrounding air or
water takes it. A technological disaster can therefore affect several coun-
tries at once. In these cases, the response effort needs not only efficient
coordination, but also impartial and neutral assistance – best provided
by a multilateral response.
30 January 2000: Baia Mare, RomaniaA major cyanide spill in the heart of Romania’s mining region decimated
local fish populations and polluted drinking water in Romania, Hungary,
Serbia and Bulgaria, before dissipating into the Black Sea.
The trigger was heavy rain and rapid melting of accumulated snow,
which overflowed and washed away part of the dam containing toxic
waste material from the Baia Mare Aurul gold mine. This released 100,000
cubic metres of wastewater heavily contaminated with cyanide into
the Lapus and Somes tributaries of the River Tisza that flows into the
Danube. Cyanide is lethal to humans and other species even in very small
doses. At the beginning of February, the concentration of cyanide in the
Tisza was 100 times higher than that permitted in drinking water. In addi-
tion to killing fish and other river life along its path, the deadly pollution
threatened the entire ecosystem of the Danube delta, one of Europe’s
richest wetland conservation areas.
“Cooperation in response
to the Philippines ferry
disaster demonstrates that it
is possible to put resources
together and increase
output…Such partnerships
and synergy help make
international response faster
and more effective, with
the ultimate objective of
supporting the populations
in need of our help.”
Advisory Group on Environmental Emergencies, Eighth Meeting Report
2 6
C h a p t e r 2
Following requests from the Governments of Hungary, Romania and
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), and con-
sultations with European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström
and OCHA, UNEP announced that a team of international experts would
be sent to the affected area to carry out a scientific analysis of the envi-
ronmental damage caused by the spill.
Sixteen experts from seven countries (Austria, Czech Republic,
Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland) were selected at
very short notice to travel to the affected areas. In addition to the expert
group, a four-person United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordina-
tion (UNDAC) team from the Disaster Response Branch of OCHA was
dispatched to provide essential logistic and coordination support for the
mission. UNEP’s Regional Office for Europe provided a press officer and a
scientific coordinator. The mission also included representatives from the
World Health Organization, the United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe and the European Commission delegations in Romania and
Hungary.
“The range of expertise
included in the team covered
chemistry, ecotoxicology,
biology, hydrology, process
engineering and dam
engineering – this was quite an
achievement.”
Vladimir Sakharov, Joint Environment Unit
The mission was organized by the Joint Environment Unit and headed
by the Director of UNEP’s Regional Office for Europe. Its terms of refer-
ence included an independent, scientific description of the spill, the
situation and events causing it, the collection and review of data related
to the spill and its environmental implications, and the preparation of
recommendations for future action and prevention.
The process of gold mining can pose major risks to human health and the environment. If an incident occurs, immediate action needs to be taken to mitigate the impacts
© Alain Pasche
2 7
P u t t i n g t h i n g s r i g h t : R e s p o n d i n g t o t e c h n o l o g i c a l e m e r g e n c i e s
The Governments of Germany, Switzerland and the
Czech Republic provided three mobile laboratories,
with backstopping available from the Joint Environ-
ment Unit, as well as the Field Coordination Support
Section and the Military and Civil Defence Unit of
OCHA’s Disaster Response Branch in Geneva. Mining
specialists in the UNEP Division of Technology, Industry
and Economics in Paris also provided specialist advice.
Considerable logistical and other support was re-
ceived from the UNDP Office in Bucharest, the United
Nations Liaison Office in Croatia and the OCHA Office
in Belgrade.
The team assembled in Bucharest in Romania, then
travelled to the breach site in Baia Mare before cross-
ing the border into Hungary and following the river
system down to the Serbian border. Finally, sampling
was undertaken along the Danube in Serbia.
Since so many different institutions were involved,
the mission represented a useful model for inter-agency
cooperation and multi-disciplinary rapid assess-
ment work. It combined sampling and analysis with
discussions among relevant national and local experts,
national authorities, affected populations and local
non-governmental organizations. The mission was not
intended to provide a full overview of the emergency
and its implications; instead, it provided an environ-
mental input to the ongoing process of international
investigation and review.
“This was an obvious environmental emergency
with little humanitarian need; however, dealing with
Creating conventions
The scale of the Chernobyl nuclear accident prompted the international com-munity to adopt two International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Conventions (Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and Mutual Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency) in 1986. These set out an interna-tional framework for cooperation among signatory countries. In addition to defining precisely what a nuclear accident is, the Conventions require coun-tries to notify the occurrence of an accident and to provide IAEA with experts and equipment in the event of a disaster. The IAEA serves as the focal point for cooperation by channelling information and available resources.
Similarly, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents was signed by 26 member countries and the European Community and entered into force on 19 April 2000. The Convention promotes active international cooperation among contracting parties and its scope goes well beyond disaster response. It aims to protect people and the environment by preventing industrial accidents where possible, reducing their frequency and severity and mitigating their effects. Meanwhile, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is responsible for keeping a wide range of shipping conventions (including those governing oil spills) up to date, and introducing new ones as and when the need arises.
These international governance frameworks promote cooperation and clarify roles and responsibilities in specific cases. However there is no over-arching framework for environmental emergencies within which the different agreements and institutions operate. This results in fragmentation, gaps in the international systems and limited coordination. The Advisory Group on Environmental Emergencies (AGEE) is seeking to address this through the Rosersberg Initiative (see Chapter 5).
2 8
C h a p t e r 2
it was complicated by land-ownership issues,” says Rudolph Müller,
Deputy Director of OCHA’s Coordination and Response Division in New
York. “The case gave the Joint Environment Unit high visibility and
credibility: it was important that a neutral body intervened and this
was the key to coordination among the different stakeholders.”
13 November 2005: Jilin, ChinaAn explosion at a petrochemical plant resulted in the release of an
estimated 100 tonnes of toxic liquids, including benzene, aniline and
nitrobenzene, into the Songhua River, which flows into the Heilongji-
ang and forms a natural border with the Russian Federation. The Son-
ghua River spill is probably one of the largest transboundary chemi-
cal incidents in a river system in recent years. In response, the Joint
Environment Unit offered assistance to the Governments of China and
Russia, putting experts and mobile analysis equipment from Canada,
Switzerland, Sweden and the Netherlands on stand-by.
Although the authorities of both countries did not request inter-
national assistance, the Chinese State Environmental Protection
Administration invited an expert team from UNEP (that included Joint
Environment Unit staff ) to the affected area. The team visited the
major affected cities, where they talked with local officials about the
recent incident and the measures taken for protecting public health
and the environment. They also presented recommendations for the
prevention of a similar occurrence. These included establishing a joint
river basin commission and undertaking a lessons-learned exercise.
Being able to advise on preventive measures is becoming an im-
portant task of the international community. At the eighth meeting of
the Advisory Group on Environmental Emergencies, Vladimir Sakharov
had this to say: “While we are constantly working on strengthening
the international system in order to be better prepared to respond to
environmental emergencies, efforts are also being made to assist coun-
tries in preventing accidents from happening. In the long run prepared-
ness measures such as training staff on safety regulations in the work
place not only save resources, but by making it less likely that accidents
happen, also lower the risks to human health and livelihoods.”
“An environmental
emergency that causes a
major impact on public health
can have a dangerously
destablising effect in a
country”
Joanna Tempowski, World Health Organization
Playing down the politics
Government reluctance to seek international assistance when dealing
with technological emergencies is often bound up with the fear of media
speculation and scaremongering, which can stir up political trouble
and inhibit donor funding for wider economic development. Alleged
or actual dumping of toxic waste is a recurring issue that courts contro-
versy, and the international community needs to work closely together
to unravel untruths if it is to respond in a useful way.
2 9
P u t t i n g t h i n g s r i g h t : R e s p o n d i n g t o t e c h n o l o g i c a l e m e r g e n c i e s
19 August 2006: Abidjan, Côte d’IvoireOver 80,000 people sought medical treatment for symptoms including
vomiting, nosebleeds and breathing difficulties in Abidjan, the largest
city and former capital of Côte d’Ivoire. Although no autopsies took
place, it is believed that 10 of them died. The deaths and medical prob-
lems were caused by the dumping of toxic waste at numerous different
sites around the city.
The toxic waste had been brought from Europe by a Greek-owned
ship registered in Panama and on hire to the Dutch oil trading company
Trafigura Beheer BV. The substance was claimed by the company to
have been wastewater from the washing of the ships tanks, but a Dutch
inquiry, news reports, and the Government of Côte d’Ivoire claimed the
substance was more than 500 metric tonnes of fuel, caustic soda, and
hydrogen sulphide.
Mass protests over the deaths and illness caused by the toxic waste
and suggestions of government corruption resulted in the resignation
of the cabinet of Prime Minister Charles Konan Banny and replacement
of the Environment and Transport Ministers. At one point the protesters
dragged the Transport Minister from his car and beat him. Protesters also
set fire to the house of the Port Director.
“An environmental emergency that causes a major impact on public
health can have a dangerously destabilising effect in a country,” says
Joanna Tempowski, Scientist from the Department of Public Health
and Environment at the World Health Organization. “Especially where a
government is already operating in a climate of social unrest and political
instability, as was the case in Côte d’Ivoire at the time. A prompt, well-
coordinated and politically neutral response is therefore essential and
good communication among the different agencies is vital.”
In September 2006, a United Nations Disaster Assessment Coordina-
tion (UNDAC) team was asked to assist with this environmental emergen-
cy. Coordinated by the Joint Environment Unit, environmental experts
from Switzerland and the Netherlands joined forces with a coordination
expert from the European Commission’s Monitoring and Information
Centre and World Health Organization staff. The team found as many as
18 dumping sites, identified the main chemical contaminants, and speci-
fied further actions to be taken by the United Nations country team and
the national authorities.
A waste-removal expert on mission in Côte d’Ivoire in 2006
© Candace Feit/IRIN
3 0
C h a p t e r 2
The full effect of the dumping remains unclear. Reports suggest that
the waste sites have still not been fully decontaminated and that Abidjan
residents continue to suffer health problems as a result.
March 2005: Coast of northern SomaliaThe huge waves that battered northern Somalia after the Indian Ocean
tsunami in December 2004 prompted renewed speculation on the
presence of toxic waste. Unconfirmed media reports and anecdotal
information suggested that the waves had stirred up hundreds of bar-
rels of toxic waste dumped illegally in the war-racked country during
the early 1990s.
Similar rumours had been circulated as far back as the late 1980s
and the United Nations had deployed fact-finding missions in 1992 and
1997, neither of which found any evidence of toxic waste dumping. As
the security situation did not allow a third field investigation, the Joint
Environment Unit made best use of existing government and humani-
tarian networks in the country. A questionnaire sent to the Transitional
Federal Government of Somalia and other Somali partners gave no
indication of any sites where waste had been dumped or washed up
on the coast. It was therefore impossible to launch a field assessment.
However, the rumours impeded export of cattle and fish, exacerbating
an already very precarious situation for the Somali people.
René Nijenhuis, Officer in Charge/Humanitarian Affairs Officer of the
Joint Environment Unit said: “Ideally, government or national scientific
institutions should be able to provide a factual and scientific answer
to these allegations and should also be able to communicate that ef-
fectively to the communities living in fear of the unknown. When they
cannot do this, we can help”. He believes that, unfortunately, due to
the lack of concrete evidence, the rumours are likely to persist and to
resurface from time to time.
23 April 2007: Khongor Soum, northern MongoliaSeveral cows and sheep died after drinking water that had overflowed
from a waste treatment plant. Groundwater and drinking water sup-
plies were also affected, threatening the health of an estimated 6,000
people and 60,000 animals. The water had been contaminated as a result
Informal gold ore processing plant, Khongor Soum, Mongolia
© Alain Pasche
3 1
P u t t i n g t h i n g s r i g h t : R e s p o n d i n g t o t e c h n o l o g i c a l e m e r g e n c i e s
of informal processing of gold ore using mercury and sodium cyanide.
While Mongolian Law restricts the use of such poisonous substances,
they are used widely in illegal and private mining. Such activities have
expanded rapidly since 1997, as the country has developed a market
economy and unemployment rates have risen.
The Mongolian Government did not request immediate international
assistance, however, following a June meeting between OCHA and
relevant government ministers it was agreed to deploy an environmental
expert through the Joint Environment Unit. The objective was to under-
take a fact-finding mission on the accident and the national response to
it, and to examine related environmental emergency risks stemming from
the mining sector.
Although there were no human casualties as a result of the accident,
over 1,000 people underwent medical examinations. Of those, five were
hospitalized, 600 received medical treatment and 200 showed signs of poi-
soning. Considering the quantity of hazardous chemicals released at the
site, the local community had a lucky escape. However, due to the rapid
expansion of Mongolia’s industrial sector, especially mining, the transport
and use of large quantities of chemicals is likely to grow. This will inevitably
increase the probability of chemical accidents, and could have serious
consequences for the population and the environment if not accompanied
by proper chemical management measures. The expert therefore made
several recommendations, particularly regarding the preparedness of the
National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA). It was suggested that
this agency should appoint a National Focal Point on Environmental Emer-
gencies (see Chapter 1) to act as a link between the Mongolian authorities
and the international community of environmental emergency respond-
ers. The Joint Environment Unit also liaized with UNEP’s Post-Conflict
and Disaster Management Branch and the World Heath Organization to
provide follow-up technical and capacity-building support.
The event also had a specific political dimension because it happened
not long before national elections were held and members of opposition
parties used it as an excuse to criticize the Government. Better prepared-
ness on the part of the relevant authorities could have avoided the poten-
tial for political problems.
Collaboration is the key
Over the years, the United Nations environmental emergency
response system has built up strong links with other national and
international systems, such as the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in the United States and the Monitoring and Information Centre
(MIC) of the European Commission (see box). Such collaboration
takes many forms, but the most successful results usually follow when
coordination starts at the onset of the emergency, thus maximizing
complementarities and minimizing duplications.
7 December 2007: West coast of the Republic of KoreaA heavy swell created tough conditions for the tug towing a large crane
along the South Korean coast. As it passed the oil tanker Hebei Spirit,
about 100 km south of Seoul, the line snapped and the jib of the crane
punctured three compartments on the port side of the tanker, releasing
an estimated 12,500 tonnes of light crude oil into the Yellow Sea. Oil
began coming on-shore late that night and, after 10 days, more than
150 km of coastline had been affected, including part of the Taean-gun
National Park. In addition to supporting a wild fishing industry and sev-
eral fish farms, the region is a popular tourist destination and provides
valuable habitats for several migratory bird species.
Despite difficult weather conditions and heavy seas, the Korean
authorities, led by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
3 2
C h a p t e r 2
(MOMAF) and the Coastguard Agency, acted swiftly in responding
to the emergency. The Government also accepted a joint offer of as-
sistance from the Joint Environment Unit and the European Commis-
sion’s Monitoring and Information Centre.
The joint assessment team’s main objective was to assess the need
for international assistance and equipment for clean-up operations.
They also advised the Korean authorities on the measures that had been
employed successfully in the past by other national response agencies.
And they were asked to provide guidance on medium- and long-term
environmental impacts related to the spill. Team members visited many
locations by land, sea and helicopter as well as receiving extensive brief-
ings from relevant national agencies.
Good coordination and considerable effort on the part of the Korean
Coastguard Agency, MOMAF, the maritime police, navy, army, and vol-
unteers from the private sector and the general public, meant that the
majority of beaches had already been cleaned. Oil booms had also been
deployed very quickly after the spill, protecting many sensitive areas. The
team therefore determined that no further international assistance was
required to aid clean-up operations. Practical recommendations made
by the team included the need to monitor for medium- and long-term
environmental impacts and to ensure efforts are coordinated between
different government departments and authorities.
This case presents a model of coordination between the United
Nations and the European Commission in environmental emergencies.
Coordination started at the onset of the emergency and culminated in a
joint offer of assistance and deployment of a joint team. On the ground,
experts used the same on-site coordination mechanism, worked as a
team, and made the best possible use of assets and donor resources.
This experience has set the standards high for other types of cooperation
between the United Nations and other regional bodies.
“Collaboration with our partners is an essential feature of the Joint
UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit’s work; it leads to better results, creates
synergies, and saves resources, ” says Roy Brooke, former Humanitarian
Affairs Officer with the Joint Environment Unit. “With each collaborative
mission there are lessons learned which increase the effectiveness of
future responses.”
Many national agencies and volunteer groups worked together to clean beaches after the Hebei Spirit oil spill
© Vladimir Sakharov/OCHA
3 3
P u t t i n g t h i n g s r i g h t : R e s p o n d i n g t o t e c h n o l o g i c a l e m e r g e n c i e s
What is the Monitoring and Information Centre?
The Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) is part of the Civil Protection Mechanism of the European Commission Directorate General for the Environment, which brings together the civil protection of 31 Participating States. Its main task is to facilitate the coordinated delivery of European civil protection assistance to disaster-stricken areas. As the central information hub of European civil protection assistance, it tracks European Union assistance, maintains contacts among Member States and identifies suitable disaster management experts to be sent to a disaster zone.
Cooperation between the Monitoring and Information Centre and the Joint Environment Unit began in 2005 on an ad hoc basis, and has since grown into a close and regular collaboration. For example, in 2006 the two units cooperated in dealing with the earthquake in Indonesia and its subsequent impact on the Merapi volcano and on several dams; the oil spill off the Lebanese coast; the chemical spill in Côte d’Ivoire; and the oil spill in the
Philippines. The Joint Environment Unit regularly shares requests for assistance with the Monitoring and Information Centre, and several important joint missions have taken place in recent years, followed by joint reporting and lessons-learned exercises.
“The joint mission between the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environ-ment Unit and the Monitoring and Information Centre of the European Commission in response to the oil spill off the shore of the Republic of Korea in December 2007 is a model of good cooperation among agencies and an example of how taking maximum advantage of existing structures can be used to avoid duplication and find pragmatic solutions in response to envi-ronmental emergencies,” says Hervé Martin, former Head of the European Commission Civil Protection Unit.
The two organizations strengthened their links by signing an informal cooperation paper in December of 2005. This forms a framework for closer cooperation on response to environmental emergencies and allows the Joint Environment Unit to access a wide range of European environmental experts through the Monitoring and Information Centre.
3
Entire villages disappeared under landslides when an earthquake struck northern Pakistan in 2005 © Jean Schneider
3 5
The power of nature: Environmental impact of natural disasters
While the origins of the Joint Environment Unit lie in dealing with the
environmental impacts of classic industrial disasters such as Bhopal in
India or Baia Mare in Romania, an increasing proportion of the Unit’s
work deals with responding to natural disasters. Earthquakes, floods,
fires, tsunamis, landslides and hurricanes can all create environmental
emergencies of enormous scale.
Natural disasters may cause severe secondary impacts that have
immediate implications for people’s health, and for the safety of those
involved in the rescue efforts. Earthquakes create landslides that hamper
rescue operations, endanger rescue teams, threaten communities in their
path, and create dams that may subsequently rupture, causing flooding
downstream. Floods, tsunamis and mudslides may lay waste to entire
villages and even cities, distributing debris and waste over large areas
of land and creating widespread health risks. And the humanitarian
response to natural disasters can itself create an environmental hazard,
through poorly located and managed refugee camps, and inadequate
control over clean-up operations.
Natural disasters exacerbate existing problems, for example where
poor waste disposal facilities become flooded and the waste is spread
across the landscape. Conflict also exacerbates environmental problems,
as happens where large numbers of displaced people gather fuelwood
from diminishing forest resources, causing deforestation and subsequent
soil degradation. And ‘natural disasters’ may really have anthropogenic
roots; witness the many wildfires that have been started by people clear-
ing forests for agriculture, or simply being careless with fire.
There are marked differences between the response to natural disas-
ters and complex disasters caused by conflict (described in Chapter 4).
For many relief workers, whose primary experience is in the humanitarian
response in conflict zones, this can come as a shock. In natural disasters,
The 2003 earthquake in
Bam, Iran, killed 27,000
people in just 20 seconds
the initial response needs to be especially swift, as the early phases are
critical to saving lives. While national governments are primarily respon-
sible for coordinating relief efforts, many do not have the capacity to do
so, sometimes delaying the response. By contrast, in complex emergen-
cies there may not even be a national government that responders can
support.
3 6
C h a p t e r 3
A major natural disaster creates an overwhelming need for help in a
matter of seconds. Damage to physical and communications infrastruc-
ture limits the ability of relief workers to reach affected communities.
And often, local government officials and community leaders are them-
selves victims of the disaster, leaving a void in the local ability to respond.
Those who survive may have lost family members and are traumatized
by events. As Arjun Katoch, Chief of OCHA’s Field Coordination Support
Section says: “To then expect the local authorities to function normally,
as the media and the outside world sometimes appear to, is irrational.”
Natural disasters create a highly difficult environment for responders
– the ‘responders’ cauldron’. The following examples provide a small taste
of the dozens of natural disasters to which the world has responded over
the past 15 years.
Highlighting needs, coordinating the response
When a natural disaster happens, the first response is from the local
community. Friends, family and neighbours as well as the local authori-
ties inevitably start the rescue effort, with whatever tools are available, in
whatever way they can. As news emerges from the stricken area, national
and international assistance begins to arrive, often in an uncoordinated
way, and sometimes unrelated to needs. In fact, when aid arrives before
actual needs are assessed, it can be detrimental to the relief effort, block-
ing roads and distracting from priority tasks. Local and national authori-
ties are often overwhelmed; help from the international emergency relief
mechanism becomes essential.
September 1997: IndonesiaAn incendiary combination of illegal burning to clear forest lands, to-
gether with a rainy season delayed by El Niño: the result was widespread,
devastating forest fires that threatened not only the unique biodiversity
of Indonesia, but also the air quality of Indonesia and surrounding coun-
tries, including Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, the Philippines and Thailand.
Between September and November 1997, an estimated two mil-
lion hectares of forest burned. Fires in deep peat deposits released
noxious carbon fumes and thick, choking smoke wreathed cities in the
region. This was a natural disaster of immense scale, stoked by people’s
careless, illegal or desperate actions in clearing forests. The fires had
This was a natural
disaster of immense scale,
stoked by people’s careless,
illegal or desperate actions
in clearing forests
severe impacts on health, the tourist industry and, most enduringly, on
Indonesia’s irreplaceable biodiversity heritage. Some 19 protected areas
were threatened by the fires in Indonesia, including a World Heritage
site, a Ramsar wetland and a biosphere reserve, all protected because of
the internationally important biodiversity riches they hold. By April 1998
fires had affected over one third of Kutai National Park – and its resident
population of endangered orang-utans.
3 7
T h e p o w e r o f n a t u r e : E n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t o f n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s
Professor Johann Goldammer, Director of the Global Fire Monitoring
Center (GFMC), a partner of the Joint Environment Unit, says: “The situation
was initially misunderstood by the government, who requested aid for a
natural disaster, when in fact it was human-made, by people burning forest
to convert land to agriculture. Unfortunately the smoke hazard became too
great … Through fact-finding and advice, missions can raise issues when a
country doesn’t realize there is a problem.”
Offers of support, equipment and expertise flooded in from around
the world. On 27 September, at the request of the United Nations Resident
Coordinator, a United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination
(UNDAC) mission was dispatched to Indonesia. The mission, composed of
UNDAC and Joint Environment Unit staff and seconded experts, remained
in Indonesia from September to November 1997.
Divided into four teams, the mission carried out independent field
assessments in the areas most affected by the fires. Meeting the people at
the forefront of the fight – local authorities, fire fighters, medical personnel,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and logging companies – allowed
the teams to build up a vivid picture of the disaster situation at the local
level, and the on-going response by local and national authorities.
Based on these assessments, the UNDAC team was able to assist the
Indonesian Government to prioritize emergency relief needs and organize
international help. As a result, assistance was mobilized and coordinated
from 19 countries, international organizations such as the European Union
and Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), United Nations
bodies including UNDP, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World
Health Organization (WHO), and the Global Fire Monitoring Center, as well
as private companies and numerous NGOs.
Twelve countries and regions dispatched fire fighters, fire-fighting
equipment and water-bombing planes. While fire-fighting equipment and
Children fleeing smoke from forest fires in Sumatra, Indonesia
© Anja Hoffmann/GFMC
3 8
C h a p t e r 3
expertise had been identified as the most pressing priority, the need for co-
ordination was clear. As a central forum for information exchange in Jakarta,
UNDAC organized a Joint Technical Coordination Group on Fire Fighting.
This brought together Indonesian government bodies, UNDP, the European
Union and representatives of the donor community from Australia, Canada,
Finland, Germany, Japan, Russia and the USA. In the international scramble
to provide assistance, such coordination played an essential role, facilitating
information exchange and helping prevent duplication of precious efforts.
17 August 1999: Izmit, TurkeyThe Izmit Province is one of the most densely populated and industrialized
areas of Turkey. Industrial facilities lie interspersed with residential areas,
while nearby agricultural lands and lakes provide green vegetables and
drinking water to the inhabitants. The Izmit Bay – heavily polluted in the
past but subject of intense rehabilitation efforts in the 1990s – forms part
of the Sea of Marmara, itself an important area for local fishermen.
When an earthquake struck northwest Turkey at 3 a.m. on 17 August
1999, the epicentre fell in the Sea of Marmara, just off Izmit. Over 17,000
people died in the earthquake and nearly 50,000 were injured. The poten-
tial for secondary environmental damage was clear, given the proximity
of industrial facilities to residential areas, agricultural land, drinking water
supplies and fishing grounds.
The Joint Environment Unit responded immediately in several ways. As
news of the earthquake began to emerge on 17 August, staff contacted
their network of official National Focal Points for Environmental Emergen-
cies in potential donor countries. A large fire was known to be burning at
the Tupras Oil Refinery in Izmit. The Joint Environment Unit approached a
number of countries to request specialist fire-fighting chemical additives
and foam as a priority. The Unit also highlighted the risk of damage to a
number of other industrial sites in the region and requested the Turkish
authorities to make information available to permit better assessment of
the situation.
On 19 August, Vladimir Sakharov (Chief of the Joint Environment Unit)
flew to Turkey to join the UNDAC team deployed two days earlier. While
providing general support to the team, he also made a rapid assessment
of the environmental impacts of the emergency, together with the Turkish
authorities. On the ground in Izmit, large industrial sites were a cause for
particular concern. The earthquake had caused significant damage to
Izmit and its surroundings, and secondary impacts threatened to turn an
environmental emergency into a disaster.
Vladimir Sakharov recalls this as a unique, multidimensional disaster situ-
ation. “Many countries provided fire-fighting assistance bilaterally, without
any kind of overall coordination,” he says. “The result was confusion, delays
in operations, and loss of precious time and valuable resources. The upshot
of this experience was that it made very clear that measures needed to be
taken to improve the coordination of international response to disasters.”
In the Tupras Oil Refinery the earthquake had caused three simulta-
neous fires. A warehouse caught fire, a tall chimney collapsed hitting a
furnace and pipelines, and several tanks of naphtha ignited. Meanwhile,
the earthquake also disrupted the electricity supply, phone connections
were lost and roads to the refinery were damaged. A pipeline carrying
fresh water from a nearby lake was ruptured. The wastewater treatment
plant ceased functioning because the electricity supply failed, and was
subsequently flooded with water from fire-fighting operations, allowing
an unknown amount and mixture of oil products to escape into the sea.
Following the oil spill into the Sea of Marmara, a British team from the
Southampton Spill Response Centre arrived to support clean-up opera-
tions, through which 600 tonnes of oil were recovered. A specialist Dutch
team assisted the refinery staff to relocate oil products from damaged
tanks inside the refinery to prevent further spills occurring.
3 9
T h e p o w e r o f n a t u r e : E n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t o f n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s
A number of potential environmental impacts of the refinery fire
were outlined in the Joint Environment Unit’s assessment. The burning
of 30,000 tonnes of oil products potentially led to severe air pollution,
with atmospheric dispersal of pollutants likely over several kilometres.
Given the proximity of the refinery to residential areas, this was a seri-
ous concern. Similarly the contamination of fields and water sources
posed a danger to people’s health. Marine pollution was extensive,
with oil, oil products and fuel polluting Izmit Bay just weeks before the
start of the fishing season. The clean-up operation itself was feared to
cause more degradation, as debris was dumped into the sea, in some
places trapping sunken oil, which would be slowly released in the
future.
A major recommendation of the Joint Environment Unit report was
the need for continued and further sampling in the Izmit Bay area.
More information was needed on contamination levels of soil and wa-
ter 3–15 km outside the refinery. An urgent need for satellite images of
Izmit Bay was highlighted to facilitate assessment and clean-up opera-
tions. The Turkish authorities were recommended to collect and make
available information on other potentially hazardous industrial facili-
ties producing, storing and using chemicals and hazardous substances.
At the time, no standard procedures or methodology existed for
environmental assessments. The development of tools such as the Haz-
ard Identification Tool and the Flash Environmental Assessment Tool –
which did not exist at the time of the Izmit earthquake – grew from the
experiences and lessons learned from this and other such emergencies.
“With Izmit, we were faced with one of the most industrialized areas in
the world, located directly on a major fault line, but without a special
hazard identification tool, we had no idea what facilities were present
in the region,” says Vladimir Sakharov. “And without any kind of stan-
dard methodology, it was not until two days later that we discovered a
“We were faced with one
of the most industrialized
areas in the world, located
directly on a major fault
line, but without any hazard
identification or assessment
tools; so we had no idea what
facilities were there or where
they were, what potentially
dangerous substances were
produced and what were the
risks.”
Vladimir Sakharov, Joint Environment Unit
4 0
C h a p t e r 3
chemical accident that could have killed more people than were killed
by the earthquake itself. Only when we visited the site with the national
authorities did the extent of the threat become clear.”
Following the earthquake and a number of other environmental
disasters in Turkey, the need for more streamlined coordination of the
response to environmental emergencies was recognized. In 2006 the
Turkish Ministry of Environment and Forestry, assisted by the Joint
Environment Unit, drew up a baseline draft Country Report, detailing the
current situation for dealing with environmental emergencies. This was
discussed at a workshop in January 2007, leading to concrete recom-
mendations for improving Turkey’s ability to respond to future environ-
mental emergencies.
A multilateral response
Just as in the ‘classic’ emergencies, environmental disasters precipitated
by a natural event take many forms and demand diverse skills. Usually
deployed through the Joint Environment Unit, environmental experts
are drawn from a range of countries, particularly from the ‘traditional’
supporters of environmental emergency response work: principally Swe-
den, Switzerland and the Netherlands. The environmental emergency
training courses run in 2008 and 2009 (see Chapter 1) aim to prepare
more experts from a range of countries in emergency response. As train-
ing is offered more widely in the future, the number of experts who can
contribute to an environmental emergency response, through bilateral
or multilateral mechanisms, will continue to increase.
26 December 2004: Indian Ocean Registering 9.0 on the Richter scale, the earthquake that struck just off
the coast of northern Sumatra on Sunday 26 December was one of the
Better tools and more back up
Since 1999, the Joint Environment Unit has made significant strides in its ability to respond rapidly to the type of emer-gency posed by the Turkey earthquake. Response procedures have moved from an ad hoc basis to a guaranteed stand-by capacity, while tools and methodologies have been devel-oped to ensure quick and effective action. The Hazard Iden-tification Tool and Flash Environmental Assessment Tool now focus attention rapidly on the sites of potential environmental impact, reducing the need to request the authorities to identify sites after a disaster occurs, while the Environmental Assessment Module allows samples of soil, water and air to be collected and analyzed immediately, rather than waiting for samples to be processed by overstretched local or interna-tional facilities.
“In the past, the UNDAC environmental expert used to be an individual, with their own area of expertise and knowledge, doing what they thought was the right thing,” says Sander van Dijk, UNDAC Environmental Expert. “Now, the environmental expert is evolving to become the eyes and ears of a bigger system, backed up with tools and follow up.” The Flash Envi-ronmental Assessment Tool and the way the Joint Environ-ment Unit is evolving contribute to this development.
4 1
T h e p o w e r o f n a t u r e : E n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t o f n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s
A wrecked train in Pereliya village in southern Sri Lanka, the day after the tsunami hit the island in December 2004
© Brennon Jones/IRIN
strongest ever recorded. The earthquake and its aftershocks, which
ranged between 6.3 and 7.0 in severity, caused a displacement of some
15 metres on the seabed, which in turn created gigantic ripples on the
water’s surface: a tsunami of devastating proportions that fanned out
across the Indian Ocean in a wave of destruction.
The tsunami hit Banda Aceh on the north Sumatra coast of Indonesia
within 30 minutes, killing 90,000 people; the coast of Thailand after 1.5 hours; “The highest elevation
in the Maldives being
1.5 metres, and the
islands so small, there
was nowhere to run when
the tsunami struck.
The entire population
of the Maldives was
affected by the disaster.”
René Nijenhuis, Joint Environment Unit
4 2
C h a p t e r 3
India half an hour later and Sri Lanka 2.5 hours later, where 31,000 people
died. The Maldive Islands felt the devastating impact 1.5 hours later, with
all 199 inhabited islands inundated and 82 deaths.
Overall, more than 290,000 people were killed or listed as missing and
presumed dead in the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster. Given the number
and geographic spread of countries affected, the response needed to be
huge, drawing in resources from a multitude of countries worldwide.
Within 24 hours, teams were dispatched to countries surrounding the
Indian Ocean. The Joint Environment Unit provided environmental experts
who were deployed as part of the UNDAC teams in Indonesia, the Maldives
and Sri Lanka (see box). In these three countries, the environmental ex-
perts carried out a rapid assessment of acute environmental problems that
could have immediate and direct effects on people’s lives and welfare.
Drawing on connections
Following the Indian Ocean tsunami, the Joint Environment Unit deployed environmental experts from a number of coun-tries as part of the UNDAC teams sent to Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. The Unit also offered to send environmental experts to India, Thailand and the Republic of Yemen. This ensured that environmental issues, which might have been overlooked in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, were given sufficient attention and prominence in the emergency response and assessments of further needs.
The UNDAC team dispatched to Indonesia included a Dutch environmental expert (supported by the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and Environment, and Ministries of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment and of Foreign Affairs). An environmental expert from the Joint Environment Unit was included in the UNDAC team in the Maldives. Three environmental experts were deployed with the UNDAC team in Sri Lanka. These included one funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, one from the Federal University of Parana in Brazil and a third from CARE International. They all worked in collaboration with the UNDAC team.
Roy Brooke, Humanitarian Affairs Officer with the Joint Environment Unit (July 2005), said: “The vast damage caused by the Indian Ocean tsunami clearly showed the benefit of having a large pool of environmental experts from which to draw upon in order to identify and address environmental impacts early on in the emergency response.”
Debris and devastation covered huge areas in Sri Lanka following the 2004 tsunami
© Alain Pasche
4 3
T h e p o w e r o f n a t u r e : E n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t o f n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s
In all three countries, disaster waste management emerged as a major
concern. The tsunami itself created a wave of debris, mixing together
waste from destroyed buildings, domestic waste dumping sites, and
sometimes more-hazardous materials. In Sri Lanka, UNEP made the simple
calculation that almost 100,000 homes, with an average weight of 3,000 kg
each, were destroyed. Combined with other debris from vehicles, boats,
existed for disinfecting medical waste, it was mixed with household
waste and dumped. The tsunami effectively distributed this mixed
waste over the islands, combining it with demolition debris that in-
cluded asbestos cement roofing sheets. Clearing and disposing of such
waste clearly posed significant logistical and health risks.
In Sri Lanka, the environmental experts observed that immediate
disposal methods frequently involved dumping debris on wetlands,
beaches and unoccupied land, creating further environmental risks. In
the Galle District, the UNDAC team environmental experts introduced a
model for waste removal that engaged thousands of displaced people
in a pay-for-work scheme to clear land safely and systematically. Debris
was recycled or reused where possible. Based on this experience, a
similar waste management programme was implemented in Banda
Aceh, Indonesia, in cooperation with the United Nations Development
Programme.
The Joint Environment Unit’s initial reports into the situation in
Indonesia and Sri Lanka highlighted the need for donors to provide
experts in waste management as well as such heavy specialized equip-
ment as aggregate crushers, wood chippers and compactors, to sup-
port the waste management and recycling processes. Guidelines were
also needed for the large number of organizations working in the field.
Field assessments found that some of the NGOs working in Sri Lanka,
for example, were not using the best practices for debris removal, and
that they lacked guidance, practical procedures and resources.
As a response to this situation, the Joint Environment Unit drew
up simple guidelines for waste disposal for use in future emergency
situations. The guidelines were designed as a poster, with easy-to-use
pictograms capable of getting the message across in a range of circum-
stances and cultures, and a template ready for translation into any
relevant language. They can be distributed to the local population to
“In almost every natural
disaster, waste and debris
are a huge problem as they
hinder rescue activities and
can pose additional risks to
the surrounding population”
Alain Pasche, UNDAC Environmental Expert, Switzerland
damaged houses and shops, they estimated a total exceeding 500 million
kilograms of rubble and waste material that needed to be cleared.
In Banda Aceh, Indonesia, domestic waste and debris (including
refrigerators, cars, furniture and plastics) was mixed with oil, chemi-
cals, contaminated water and sewage. In the Maldives, the tsunami
exacerbated already poor waste management practices. As no facilities
4 4
C h a p t e r 3
raise awareness and provide instructions on what to do and what not
to do in terms of handling, disposal, separation and transport of waste.
Management of sewage and sanitation in sites used to shelter
homeless and displaced people was also identified as a key envi-
ronmental issue through the rapid environmental assessments.
Learning lessons
The Indian Ocean tsunami triggered the development of a number of new tools and guidelines. Several months after the tsunami, OCHA conducted a lesson-learning exercise to exam-ine the treatment of environmental issues during the emer-gency response. People interviewed for the study consistently raised questions about the methods used for carrying out rapid environmental assessments. In particular, responders felt that the methodology was not applied consistently among countries, or among different parts of the same country. The methodology was not ‘rapid’ enough for use in the immediate aftermath of a disaster and there was also confusion among different agencies over the scope of the assessments. Some addressed only acute environmental issues while others con-sidered medium- to longer-term environmental problems.
The study concluded (among other things) that the Joint Environment Unit should develop a new methodology to enhance consistency of reporting and compatibility of results. This should identify major secondary risks using a simple for-mat as a standard feature in any emergency assessment. This finding was reinforced by the feedback from the environmen-tal experts deployed to the South Asia earthquake in 2005.
As a result, the Joint Environment Unit asked the Nether-lands National Public Institute for Environment and Public Health to develop an improved methodology for the initial assessment following a natural disaster. This led to the develop-ment of the Flash Environmental Assessment Tool.
Debris from collapsed buildings can obstruct relief operations, pollute groundwater, and threaten the localpopulation and relief workers with hidden dangers and further collapse. Proper clearing is essential for the short- and long-term success of recovery efforts.
Protect yourself.
Wear boots, gloves, dust masks, overalls and helmets, if available. Wash and if possible disinfect your hands regularly.
Enter damaged buildings cautiously and only if necessary.
If you suspect waste to be dangerous, warn other workers and notify authorities. When possible, fence off the area or secure the waste in clearly labelled containers.
!!DO
DO Store useful materials for rebuilding or recovery efforts, such as wood planks, bricks, cement blocks and containers and look for recycling opportunities in local areas.
Initial clearing of debris and solid waste
DODon't mix wastes from hospitals and clinics with other wastes. Store them in sealed, labelled containers.
DON’T
DON’TAvoid burning waste openly. Ifburning is necessary, locate a properly operated incinerator.
DORemember the five stages of debris removal:
Recover the living Recover the dead Recover valuables Clear for access Clear for reconstruc-tion and recycling
DO
This information sheet was compiled from several sources by the Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland. Tel: +41 (0)22 917 3484, Fax: +41 (0)22 917 0257United Nations Office
for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
DO
Put temporary landfills where they can be easily accessed by large trucks.
If waste cannot be incinerated properly, then store it in areas with clay DO
or solid rocks and away from wells and groundwater.
4 5
T h e p o w e r o f n a t u r e : E n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t o f n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s
In Sri Lanka, over 500,000 people lost their homes to the tsunami.
Many took shelter in schools, religious centres and camps. Inadequate
supplies of equipment and methods to clean sewage, and a lack of
experience by some organizations managing camps and shelters led to
serious risks of environmental contamination and outbreaks of disease.
Tools, guidelines and training were all needed, as were equipment and
expertise.
The rapid environmental assessment reports from Indonesia, the
Maldives and Sri Lanka provided initial recommendations and were
widely circulated to the country governments, the donor community
and other stakeholders. The findings were used as inputs to subse-
quent environmental assessment activities and processes. As the
battered countries of the Indian Ocean began the long process of
reconstruction, these initial assessments helped lay the foundations
for ‘building back better’ using environmentally safe technologies and
management practices.
The importance of specialist follow-up
In the aftermath of a natural disaster, the speed of the initial response is of
the essence when it comes to saving lives. However, many issues identi-
fied as part of the initial environmental assessment cannot be dealt with or
completed as part of the immediate relief effort. Longer-term attention is
needed, stretching into the later phases of the response.
Often, of course, international support is unnecessary, as national
authorities are capable of dealing with the long-term reconstruction effort.
However, in some disasters continued support from experts has been critical
during this process. Repeated visits allow experts to coordinate with national
authorities and international agencies at different stages in the process, and
to help resolve problems that emerge during the recovery process.
“The toughest logistical
challenge the aid community
has faced to date”
Jan Egeland, former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs,
speaking in 2005
Waste management caused a major problem after the earthquake in northern Pakistan
© Leif Jönsson/MSB
4 6
C h a p t e r 3
8 October 2005: northern PakistanThe earthquake struck at 8.50 a.m. on Saturday 8 October 2005. Measuring
7.6 on the Richter scale it flattened villages and destroyed towns and cities
over a vast area of northern Pakistan. Roads disappeared under landslides,
villages slipped down hills; all roads to the town of Muzaffarabad, 95 km
northeast of the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, were cut off and with it an
estimated 1,000 settlements.
Seventy-three thousand people died in the disaster, 69,500 were injured
and a further 3.3 million were made homeless. With the Himalayan winter
rapidly approaching, the need for access to the region was acute. The combi-
nation of the enormous number of injured, the high altitude of the affected
areas, the mountainous terrain, the almost complete destruction of the
infrastructure in an area covering 28,000 square kilometres, and the rapidly
deteriorating weather conditions made this situation “the toughest logistical
challenge the aid community has faced to date,” according to Jan Egeland,
then United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs.
Within 24 hours, an UNDAC team had arrived in Islamabad, with more
members soon following behind. The team included two environmental
experts whose job it was to undertake a rapid environmental assessment
and to identify any acute environmental issues arising from the earth-
quake, to be shared with national and international partners through
meetings and OCHA humanitarian situation reports.
Based on this assessment, the Joint Environment Unit identified and
deployed four additional environmental experts, including three from
Switzerland and one from Sweden, to address the major problems identi-
fied. Two experts focused on disaster waste management issues, one was
responsible for identifying and advising on slope stability and landslide
risks, and the fourth expert examined issues related to natural resource use.
These specialists not only carried out assessments of the situation, they also
provided practical advice and solutions to the problems on the ground.
One of the environmental experts was Professor Jean Schneider,
a geologist specializing in geohazards especially mass movements.
Through the Joint Environment Unit, Professor Schneider was sec-
onded from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).
Working with the Pakistani Military, he provided technical advice and
assistance on conducting emergency road clearing, excavations of
landslides, and reinforcing unstable slopes. This advice proved essential
in helping open the roads to the isolated Muzaffarabad area and the
three most affected valleys – Neelum, Kaghan and Jhelu – while reduc-
ing the number of accidents affecting road-clearing crews, convoys and
relief workers.
The danger of landslides severely hampered the relief effort until the advice of a slope-stability expert was secured
© Jean Schneider
4 7
T h e p o w e r o f n a t u r e : E n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t o f n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s
During the earthquake, a large landslide was also triggered in the
Jhrlu Valley, blocking the waterways of two small tributaries of the Jhrlu
River. As well as burying the small village of Dandbeh, the landslide cre-
ated a dam, 250–350 metres high. If the dam were to collapse, severe
downstream flooding could occur. Professor Schneider worked with
national authorities to draw up a list of priority mitigation measures,
which aimed to lower the risk of a possible outbreak flood. These need-
ed to be put in place during the spring of 2006, before the snowmelt
increased the water level in the lake to a dangerous degree.
In January 2006, Professor Schneider was able to return to Paki-
stan to reassess the situation, review the work already done and plan
the next steps, alongside the Pakistan Army Corps of Engineers and
Geological Survey of Pakistan. The Joint Environment Unit supported
his return visit to Pakistan in order to provide continued support and
handover to the longer-term recovery team. This feature of the Joint
Environment Unit provides great flexibility in the response to environ-
mental emergencies.
September 2008: Turks and Caicos IslandsTropical Storm Hanna hit the Turks and Caicos Islands at the beginning
of September 2008, leaving hundreds of people homeless. Close on its
heels came Hurricane Ike, striking Grand Turk, South Caicos and Salt
Cay most severely on 7 September. This British Overseas Territory in the
Caribbean is made up of 40 islands, eight of which are inhabited. The low
terrain is largely covered with marshes, mangroves and swamps, mak-
ing them vulnerable to the hurricanes and flooding. With an economy
heavily reliant on tourism, the Turks and Caicos Islands could ill afford an
environmental disaster that would discourage visitors in the long term.
An environmental expert, sent to the islands with the UNDAC team
on 8 September, identified a number of risks that needed to be urgently
Introducing the ‘Cluster’ approach
The Cluster approach was a key recommendation of the July 2005 Humanitarian Response Review (HRR). Clusters create a single framework for coordination by bringing together a va-riety of different actors, including international governmental organizations, national and international non-governmental organizations, government and the military, for regular coor-dination meetings. The approach was implemented for the first time during the response to the South Asia earthquake in Pakistan.
To date there are 11 clusters: agriculture, camp coordina-tion/management, early recovery, education, emergency shelter, emergency telecommunications, health, logistics, nu-trition, protection, water sanitation and hygiene. The clusters of particular relevance to environmental emergency response include health, water and sanitation, and early recovery. Clusters are also established in countries where there are humanitarian concerns.
In July 2006, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) recognized the environment as a crosscutting issue with UNEP as a focal point in the humanitarian coordination system. Subsequently, the Committee asked UNEP, with the support of the Joint Environment Unit, to develop guidance and other tools to better integrate environmental issues into humanitarian action and early recovery programmes.
4 8
C h a p t e r 3
addressed. In particular, medical waste was found mixed with domestic
material in the municipal dumpsite, which had reportedly been flooded
by the hurricane, spreading waste over the surrounding area and pos-
sibly contaminating groundwater and nearby water bodies.
Throughout the islands Tropical Storm Hanna and Hurricane Ike
deposited a huge variety of waste: construction material (plastic, metal,
wood and rubble); hospital waste (needles, scalpel blades and syringes);
and organic domestic waste and natural debris including trees and
vegetation. Furthermore, the storms had disrupted power supplies and
water supply systems, potentially spreading human faecal waste.
Given the scale and urgency of the waste problem and the risk
it posed to people’s health, the Turks and Caicos Islands Ministry of
Home Affairs requested urgent further assistance from the Joint En-
vironment Unit. On receiving the official request, the Unit deployed a
solid waste management expert through the Swedish Rescue Service
Agency (SRSA, now the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, MSB).
Per Berg, a specialist in solid disaster waste management, made two
trips to the Turks and Caicos Islands in the aftermath of the hurricane.
Over a period of three weeks in September and October 2008, he as-
sessed disaster waste management issues on the three islands most
affected by the storms, in order to identify urgent needs for support
and develop practical guidance for local authorities. In December, a
follow-up visit was made, which identified that there was still a need
for support.
During September, Per Berg worked in close cooperation with the
Department of Environmental Health in Grand Turk and with other
local authorities. Waste disposal at the hospital was identified as a
serious problem, as the incinerator had been damaged during the
hurricane, and infectious waste was mixed with regular waste. Roofing
materials were sampled and sent for analysis in the USA; these were
found not to contain asbestos, relieving the authorities of a potentially
serious concern. In the short term, the need for assistance with equip-
ment for removing disaster waste from the streets and support for the
disposal of electrical transformers were identified as priorities.
During the follow-up mission in December, improvements were
seen in the situation on Grand Turk despite the fact that the grapple
equipment needed for clearing the streets had not been made avail-
able by any donor. During that mission, the Caribbean Development
Bank made funds available for a grapple to be bought. The follow-up
mission in December also provided guidance and recommendations
Debris from homes and other buildings in Turks and Caicos following Tropical Storm Hannah and Hurricane Ike
© Per Berg/MSB
4 9
T h e p o w e r o f n a t u r e : E n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t o f n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s
for actions to be taken over the following year in order to deal with
the threats still remaining from Hurricane Ike, and to ensure better
preparedness before the onset of the next year’s hurricane season.
Testing new tools
3 February 2008: eastern Democratic Republic of CongoOn 3 February 2008, an earthquake of magnitude 6.1 on the Richter
scale struck the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, with its epicen-
tre some 20 km north of the South Kivu provincial capital, Bukavu. This
was followed by a number of aftershocks, including another earth-
quake of magnitude 6.1 just 11 days later. In the Democratic Republic
of Congo and neighbouring Rwanda 47 people died and 1,155 were
injured in the two earthquakes.
The UNDAC team sent to the area on 10 February included two
environmental experts from Denmark and Switzerland. While working
as part of the team, they were able to field test the Flash Environmental
Assessment Tool (FEAT), developed by the Netherlands National Insti-
tute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).
The FEAT primarily aims to identify acute risks related to industrial
infrastructure and natural systems. As a secondary consideration, it also
helps to identify medium- to longer-term issues that need to be high-
lighted at the earliest stages following a disaster. On arrival in Bukavu,
the UNDAC environmental experts worked with local experts and
stakeholders, using the FEAT methodology, to build a list of major infra-
structure, industrial installations and landslides that posed an immedi-
ate threat to human life and health. These priority sites were visited for
further field assessment.
The assessment identified landslides as being the biggest threat fol-
lowing the earthquake. Dense settlements on the steep slopes on both
sides of the Institut Technique Fundi Maendeleo (ITFM) landslide were
found to be at high risk from future earthquakes and landslides. Some
of the houses were very likely to have been damaged by the earth-
quake and were potentially at risk of collapse.
The team recommended that the national authorities should carry
out detailed mapping of the landslides and faults, and develop a
prioritized action plan. Relocation options for the people living on the
steep slopes on either side of the Institut Technique Fundi Maendeleo
landslide should also be considered. The assessment did not identify
any immediate or direct impacts on human health from infrastructure
and industrial installations. This was also a useful finding, allowing
these issues to be dismissed as potential problem areas.
5 0
C h a p t e r 3
When Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the US Gulf Coast, it wreaked havoc, causing physical destruction and flooding on an unprecedented scale, ultimately leaving over 1,300 people dead and entire neighbourhoods under water
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) led the response regarding hazardous materials and oil. Environmental problems included sediment and water contamination with oil, petrol and bacteria such as E. coli. Orphan oil and chemical containers and other household debris posed a significant clean-up task
Winds of up to 209 km per hour and an accompanying storm surge as high as 8 metres affected 240,900 square kilometres. Breaches in New Orleans’ 560-kilometre levee system allowed water to flood 80% of the city to a depth of 1.8 to 7.3 metres
The EPA collected refrigerators and extracted the freon to ensure that the ozone-damaging gas was not released when refrigerators were dumped in landfills in the scramble to clean up
© US Environmental Protection Agency
© US Environmental Protection Agency
© US Environmental Protection Agency
© US Environmental Protection Agency
29 August 2005: Hurricane Katrina, Gulf coast of USA
5 1
T h e p o w e r o f n a t u r e : E n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c t o f n a t u r a l d i s a s t e r s
Rescue teams work together to dig out the town of Xiaolin, buried by mudslides following Typhoon Morakot
The town was buried under up to 20 m of mud and rocks. By 2 September, 614 people were confirmed dead, with 92 still reported as missing. More than 1.6 million people were evacuated
Satellite images of Xiaolin before (left) and after (right) the mudslides show the scale of devastation
The UNDAC team worked closely with army personnel to verify the stability of the debris because of the probability of further landslides during the remainder of the typhoon season
© Sawyer Mars
© René Nijenhuis/OCHA
©NSPO/UNOSAT
© Sawyer Mars
7 August 2009: Typhoon Morakot, Xiaolin
4
Years after the various conflicts in Iraq, tanks hit by depleted uranium ammunition can be found corroding by the side of the road © UNEP
5 3
Conflict and war: Complex environmental emergencies
In 1999, images from Kosovo in the Balkans alarmed the world. Fires
in oil refineries and oil storage depots burned for days, creating black
clouds of pollution over wide areas; toxic chemicals leaked into the River
Danube; sewage escaped as towns and villages were destroyed; and
huge bomb craters appeared in protected wilderness areas. Meanwhile,
tens of thousands of refugees fled their homes, straining drinking water
and sanitation systems to breaking point in neighbouring Albania and
Macedonia.
Complex environmental emergencies are those that occur in such
situations of civil unrest, conflict and the breakdown of authority, where
bombing, looting and attacks on strategic industrial installations become
commonplace. Environmental emergencies also occur in the aftermath
of conflict, for example, when there is an accident at a munitions storage
or decommissioning facility.
In common with natural disasters, such as droughts and tsunamis,
conflict can lead to the displacement of thousands of people, who then
congregate in displacement camps. Damage to the environment from
pollution of soil and water and deforestation will follow, especially when
people are confined in an unsuitable location with few natural resources
to support them.
Overcoming hostilities, overseeing actions
14–15 July 2006: Jiyeh, LebanonOpen hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah led to heavy aerial bom-
bardment of Lebanon, particularly in the south of the country and south
Beirut. The conflict resulted in loss of life, injuries and considerable damage
to Lebanese industrial installations and infrastructure. From the beginning
of the crisis, the Joint Environment Unit monitored and identified poten-
tial acute risks, such as chemical spills, occurring as a result of damage to
industrial infrastructure.
Numerous players were involved in the environmental response efforts
at the international level, giving rise to a need for effective coordination.
International response to the oil spill involved the Regional Marine
Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean (REMPEC),
which was responsible for the operational elements of the response, the
European Commission’s Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC), which
mobilized a range of expertise and resources from its member states, and
the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The Joint Environment Unit
played a key role in coordination and sharing knowledge, issuing environ-
mental updates as the crisis developed and providing input into the OCHA
5 4
C h a p t e r 4
Humanitarian Situation Reports. The Unit also organized and chaired
regular stakeholder conference calls that provided a forum for information
sharing, ensured maximum efficiency and minimized overlap. Finally, the
Joint Environment Unit ensured a smooth transition when ‘handing over’
to the UNEP Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch (PCDMB) (see
box), who followed up by undertaking a post-conflict environmental as-
sessment study.
“The large number of individual countries – such as Italy, Kuwait and
Norway – and inter-governmental organizations – such as the European
Commission, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the
United Nations – that responded to the Lebanese appeals for assistance
posed a serious coordination challenge. To avoid duplication of effort and
waste of resources, we helped the Ministry of Environment to set up a
coordination centre so that all parties could benefit from the same infor-
mation base,” says René Nijenhuis, Officer in Charge/Humanitarian Affairs
Officer of the Joint Environment Unit.
One of the most serious environmental consequences of the conflict
happened when the Israeli air force bombed the Jiyeh power plant, dam-
aging storage tanks and releasing an estimated 10,000 tonnes of heavy
The oil spill contained in Byblos Harbour, Lebanon
© René Nijenhuis/OCHA
“We did on occasion find
ourselves close to previously
unmarked cluster bombs –
they can take your limbs off.”
Mike Cowing, UNEP
fuel oil into the eastern Mediterranean Sea. A 10 km-wide oil slick travelled
northwards, affecting most of the Lebanese coast and around 20 km of the
Syrian coastline. The slick covered beaches, killing fish and seabirds and
threatening the habitats of the endangered northern bluefin tuna and the
green sea turtle. Burning oil created a toxic cloud that rained oil downwind
of the power station, creating a human as well as environmental health
hazard. Clean-up operations were hampered by the Israeli naval blockade
and continuing military strikes.
5 5
‘Handing over’ environmental response activities
A key function of the Joint Environment Unit is to assess the acute environmental impacts of industrial accidents, natural disasters and other emergencies, and to mobilize assistance to address them. Assistance focuses on the initial emergency phase of disaster re-sponse, rather than on long-term recovery and rehabilitation issues. During the Lebanon crisis, the Joint Environment Unit established a presence in Syria on 8 August 2006, pending United Nations se-curity clearance to enter Lebanon. Once that was agreed, the Unit maintained a presence in Lebanon from 13 August until the start of the post-conflict environmental activities led by UNEP’s Post-Con-flict and Disaster Management Branch (PCDMB) during the second half of September. So what happens when the Joint Environment Unit ‘goes home’?
UNEP’s PCDMB is one of the Joint Environment Unit’s main partners. The two departments work together closely to ensure a smooth transition from the response phase to the subsequent recovery and rehabilitation phases for which PCDMB has responsi-bility. They also liaise closely during the disaster response phase.
“When you send experts you create expectations,” says Hen-rik Slotte, Chief of PCDMB. “It is important that the work begun
by the Joint Environment Unit is followed up by the involve-ment of some other part of the United Nations system.”
In the Lebanon crisis, René Nijenhuis, on behalf of the Joint Environment Unit focused on the oil spill and immediate indus-trial pollution issues, while Mike Cowing led the PCDMB mission, which had a much wider mandate. UNEP’s team was comprised of 12 experts, whose main task was to deal with contaminated sites all over the country. They collected samples of soil, surface and groundwater, dust, ash, seawater, sediment and molluscs and sent them to specialist laboratories in Europe. The major environmental problems facing post-conflict Lebanon included hazardous waste (unexploded ammunition, chemicals and healthcare waste) mixed in among the demolition rubble, dam-aged water infrastructure, a polluted coastline, and a legacy of landmines in agricultural land.
In early 2008, the Joint Environment Unit and PCDMB cemented their partnership by finalizing Standard Operating Procedures. These define the roles and responsibilities govern-ing the deployment of environmental experts during emer-gency response and aim to ensure a smooth transition and handover from the emergency response phase to the stage of early recovery.
5 6
C h a p t e r 4
Following a request from the Syrian authorities, the Joint Environment
Unit together with the IMO and REMPEC undertook an assessment of the
Syrian coast. And in Lebanon itself, the Joint Environment Unit set up an
Oil Spill Operations and Coordination Centre within the Ministry of Envi-
ronment. During the aerial blockade of Lebanon, UNEP’s Executive Director
played a key role in getting Israeli agreement for aerial surveillance flights
along an ‘environmental corridor’. This allowed the response team to assess
the extent of the spill.
Meanwhile in south Beirut, intense aerial bombing had created
mountains of demolition rubble and waste, posing a major challenge
for long-term reconstruction efforts. The Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation (SDC) therefore deployed a waste management expert
(through the Joint Environment Unit) to work with the Lebanese Minis-
try of Environment to prepare a rapid waste assessment. A key problem
was the possible presence of unexploded bombs in the rubble, since this
posed a serious risk to all involved in clearing and demolition activities.
The expert recommended that a temporary waste recycling and storage
site should be set up to promote the recycling of various waste streams,
thereby reducing the pressure on natural resources.
Dangers of ammunitions storage
27 January 2002: Lagos, NigeriaAn ammunition dump located in the main Ikeja military cantonment in
Lagos started exploding at about six o’clock in the evening, reportedly
caused by a fire that spread from a nearby market. Explosions continued
throughout the night and into the next day, devastating an area of over
1.5 square km. Shells and other ammunition landed up to 5 km away,
killing people and damaging buildings in the heavily populated areas
surrounding the cantonment.
According to official statistics, over 1,000 people died, although local
sources suggest there could have been as many as 2,000 fatalities. Most of
the deaths were not caused by the ammunition, but by the panic that fol-
lowed the explosions. Hundreds perished when fleeing crowds spilled over
into the Oke-Afa canal, and small children were trampled as crowds rushed
down the slopes. Many families became separated in the confusion, and
around 200 children were abandoned.
Most of the deaths were not
caused by the ammunition,
but by the panic that followed
the explosions
The international response mission included representation from the
Joint Environment Unit, UNEP, OCHA, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNI-
CEF), World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Federation
of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). In addition to providing hu-
manitarian response in the form of medical aid and temporary camps, the
mission advised the Nigerians on how to clean up the area and make it safe.
Unexploded shells and other ammunition are highly unstable and clearing
them up is a costly and time-consuming exercise. The team advised that
specialist equipment should be brought in to deal with this aspect.
“This disaster is a typical example of a technological, or man-made,
incident when hazardous materials are located in densely populated areas
5 7
without the necessary prevention and preparedness arrangements for
surrounding populations,” says Vladimir Sakharov. “The humanitarian im-
pact of this event was made more severe by the lack of clear information,
warnings or guidance from the authorities at the outset. Certain aspects of
the relief operation reflect weaknesses in coordination among the various
agencies involved and there was clear evidence of a lack of disaster
management capacity and contingency planning.”
Mission staff also recommended an environmental impact assessment
in connection with the incident, including assessment of structural damage
resulting from the initial blast. The introduction of UNEP’s Awareness and
Preparedness at Local Level (APELL) process, especially focusing on various
potential hazardous sites in the country, was advised (see box). They also sug-
gested that improving the overall disaster management capacity in Nigeria
would be important in mitigating against the impacts of any future events.
15 March 2008: Gerdec, Albania Twenty-six people died and over 4,000 had to be evacuated after an
explosion at a munitions decommissioning facility in the village of Gerdec,
15 km west of the Albanian capital, Tirana. The powerful blasts shattered
windows and destroyed houses throughout the nearby residential neigh-
bourhoods. Over 4,000 houses and business premises were damaged
along with numerous water and power supply networks, roads, public
buildings, schools, kindergartens and health centres.
Environmental expert and UNEP Programme Officer Muralee Thumma-
rukudy, was deployed to the scene. “I went as part of an UNDAC team who
understood bombs – the team leader was an Austrian general,” he says.
“We looked at environmental issues, explosives, chemicals, and ground-
water and took soil and water samples. Our main concern was the number
of high-energy explosives and the fact that live ammunition was lying all
over people’s backyards. We even saw a father and son walking around the
garden picking it up!”. The mission team understood that the ammuni-
tion was simply being unscrewed so as to sell the metal containers.
The accident scattered unexploded ammunition widely, rendering
the area around the factory a safety nightmare. The UNDAC environmen-
tal assessment concluded that even after all the ammunition had been
removed, the area should be considered an environmental hotspot, due
to the presence of heavy metal contaminants. Destruction of buildings
and vegetation created large quantities of solid waste that needed to be
cleared and managed. The factory was located on a slope and contamina-
tion from the site was draining into a watercourse, requiring immediate
pollution prevention measures.
Furthermore, there was little understanding among the community or
local administration about the nature of the operations being carried out
in the factory and their risk to human health and the environment. The
assessment report also recommended longer-term measures that included
introducing a programme to increase local communities’ awareness of the
risks associated with nearby industrial activities.
Additional stress on a marginal environment
October 2004: Darfur, SudanLong-term ethnic conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan escalated in 2002/03
into open warfare, forcing an estimated 1.6 million people to flee their
homes and creating a humanitarian emergency. While many people fled
to neighbouring Chad, the majority of the internally displaced people,
known as ‘IDPs’, were housed in temporary camps within Darfur, where they
remained vulnerable to attack and put pressure on already scarce environ-
mental resources.
Competition for land and water between sedentary farmers and nomadic
tribes has long been a part of Darfur’s history. More recently, changes in
5 8
C h a p t e r 4
‘Just in case’: promoting local emergency awareness
A fully aware, well-informed and properly trained population is the best guarantee of safety and of successful response to any disaster. Unfor-tunately, most communities and many government services are not prepared for the hazards they face, lacking the education, awareness, knowledge and preparedness they need to take effective action when disaster strikes. If communities were more aware of potential dangers and were informed what to do ‘just in case’, the impacts of humanitar-ian and environmental emergencies could be reduced dramatically.
“In the Nigeria and Albania explosions, many more people would have survived if the local community had been more aware of the dangers and had known what to do in the event of an explosion,” says Vladimir Sakharov. “Similarly, if local authorities had been better pre-pared with contingency plans, they could have contained the damage more effectively.”
A number of major industrial accidents that had serious impacts on health and the environment prompted UNEP to develop the Aware-ness and Preparedness at Local Level (APELL) programme (mentioned briefly on page 17). The aim is to minimize the occurrence and harmful effects of technological accidents and environmental emergencies resulting from human activity or as a consequence of natural disasters, particularly in developing countries. APELL was developed in partnership with industry associations, communities and governments and recognizes that the great-est opportunity for reducing the effects of environmental disasters is to involve the local community in prevention and preparedness initiatives.
“APELL is a tool for bringing people together to allow effective communication about risks and emergency responses,” says René Nijenhuis. “The process of dialogue should help to reduce risk, improve the effectiveness of response to accidents and allow ordinary people to react appropriately during emergencies.”
Within the framework of the programme, UNEP produces technical reports and other materials that serve as important information sources on disaster prevention and response planning in vulnerable areas. APELL has now been successfully introduced in more than 30 countries and in over 80 industrial communities worldwide.
Goats grazing next to rocket fuel containers, Afghanistan. Local communities often lack awareness of potential dangers to health and the environment
© UNEP
5 9
governance, environmental degradation and the impacts of prolonged
droughts have exacerbated the situation, causing nomadic groups to move
further south and intensifying friction with farmers in Darfur’s more fertile
agricultural belt. Housing so many people in an already impoverished land-
scape has created an emergency, with groundwater depletion, soil and water
pollution, deforestation and further environmental degradation, including
desertification. This severely threatens the rehabilitation of the area and res-
toration of livelihoods once the conflict is over and people can return home.
“Efforts to sustain even minimal levels of survival for the displaced were
clearly using locally available natural resources at unsustainable levels,”
says Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment Project Lead Researcher
Charles Kelly. “The humanitarian agencies were doing their best to meet im-
mediate needs with limited resources, but little thought was given to envi-
ronmental impacts, nor to how current actions would eventually contribute
to future conflicts around the camps.”
Because of the close links between the humanitarian and the environ-
mental emergency, and the fact that environmental considerations should
play an important role in relief operations, the Joint Environment Unit and
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) supported
CARE International in Sudan and the Benfield Hazard Research Centre in
conducting a Rapid Environmental Assessment in three refugee camps in
Darfur. The objective was to identify environmental issues with immediate
relevance to human welfare and response efforts in Darfur and, where pos-
sible, offer recommendations for future response and rehabilitation work.
The assessment identified several serious environmental problems in
the camps, related particularly to an unsustainable use of wood, water and
grass along with poor management of waste. It became apparent that
environmental considerations and available solutions were not consistently
integrated into the relief efforts, thereby undermining their effectiveness.
At the same time, a relief-assistance ‘gap’ was forcing inhabitants to deplete
natural resources in order to survive, with significant humanitarian and
environmental consequences for the future.
Charles Kelly concludes: “The Darfur assessment confirmed that dis-
placed persons camps can have major negative environmental impacts due
to a survival-driven need to exploit natural resources, inadequate waste
management and the life-threatening lack of proper sanitation. Addressing
these and other environmental concerns needs to be integral to effective
camp planning and management so that negative environmental impacts
are reduced and natural resources used in a sustainable manner. Sustainable
camp management can also contribute to the integration of the environ-
ment as a core element in return and resettlement plans.”
Queues for water in an IDP camp in Darfur
© UNEP
5
Environmental expert Alain Pasche taking soil samples following the collapse of a uranium mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2004 © OCHA
6 1
The changing face of international response
As the previous chapters show, environmental emergencies occur in a
wide range of situations, from extreme and far-reaching weather events
to localized industrial accidents. But under this broad umbrella are some
common themes; the principal one being that no region, country or
community is immune. Environmental emergency can strike anywhere,
at any time. It is also clear, however, that developing countries and those
with economies in transition are most vulnerable, being weaker in all
areas of prevention, preparedness, assessment, mitigation and response.
The international community therefore has a responsibility to help build
developing country capacity by sharing appropriate prevention and
mitigation tools and applying valuable lessons learned from previous
multilateral response to environmental emergency management.
So what lessons have been learned during the past 15 years? And
how have these influenced changes in emergency response efforts and
management? This chapter presents some answers to these questions,
as viewed by a range of environmental emergency professionals.
Connecting humanitarian and environmental response
Whether they have a technological cause (as in the Baia Mare accident)
or are precipitated by a natural event (like the South Asia earthquake),
most disasters and emergencies have both humanitarian and environ-
mental impacts. “Too often, a disaster gets labelled as being one or
Humanitarian responders are being encouraged to give a higher profile to environmental aspects of disaster response. After the 2005 Pakistan earthquake, relief supplies (such as spare clothing) flooded in, creating supply and waste management challenges
the other without considering its holistic consequences,” says Vladi-
mir Sakharov. “And this compartmentalization has carried over into
how the international community has initially developed its response
mechanisms to such disasters.”
© Edward Parsons/IRIN
6 2
C h a p t e r 5
While the humanitarian community has grown more aware of the
importance of environmental concerns during the past 15 years, many
challenges remain. Environmental concerns are still frequently ignored
when planning and carrying out large-scale relief operations. For ex-
ample, when relief agencies distribute hundreds of thousands of bottles
of drinking water to people affected by a disaster, they are dealing with
the immediate problem of keeping people alive and healthy. But what
happens to those bottles afterwards? Tonnes of plastic bottles remain,
strewn across the landscape and ignored by struggling waste disposal
systems. Furthermore, many humanitarian responders are unaware that
relief and recovery activities themselves may have negative impacts on
the environment. Dealing with relief supplies packaging, for example,
can pose an enormous problem to a country that has no formal waste
collection or disposal service.
Failing to take account of the environmental impact of a humanitar-
ian response can undermine the relief process, leading to additional
loss of life, increased vulnerability and long-term dependency on aid.
The Joint Environment Unit was established by UNEP and OCHA on the
recommendation of concerned Member States in recognition of the fact
that human populations and the environment are closely interlinked,
and therefore international humanitarian and environmental assistance
should be similarly linked. In light of this, recent major developments in
the humanitarian response field have seen consolidation of activities into
a ‘cluster’ approach and integration of the environment as a crosscutting
issue (see page 47).
Meanwhile, the Joint Environment Unit and UNEP’s Post Conflict
Disaster Management Branch (PCDMB) have embarked on a compre-
hensive strategy to raise the visibility of the environmental dimension
of crises with disaster managers at various levels. This includes capacity-
building support for national authorities in disaster-prone countries; for
Humanitarian action and the environment
Invited by the United Nations Inter-Agency Standing Committee and working with UNEP’s Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch (PCDMB), the Joint Environment Unit has devel-oped a guidance note entitled Humanitarian Action and the Environment. The publica-tion aims to raise awareness among humanitarian agen-cies of the need to consider environmental issues and to point the way to the available standards, technical guide-lines and tools. It explains why environmental concerns should be given attention, describes which institutions, tools and mechanisms can provide assistance in this sector, and identifies specific areas of concern related to the different humanitarian clusters (e.g., health, water, shelter). The target audience is humanitarian relief manag-ers, field practitioners and policymakers.
As part of a comprehensive advocacy and information strategy, this publication aims to raise the visibility of the environmental dimension of crises with disaster managers
6 3
T h e c h a n g i n g f a c e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e
Key environmental issues in humanitarian response clusters
Cluster Environmental impacts on humanitarian activities
Humanitarian activities causing environmental impact
Health Contamination by chemicals, hazardous waste and weaponsRelease of asbestos from buildingsPresence of debris and carcassesUnsafe chemicals waste management
Improper management of healthcare waste and expired medicinesImproper management of chemicals required for health protection (e.g., water treatment)Improper management of waste, debris and carcasses
Water, sanitation, hygiene
Contamination of water sources by chemicals, hazardous waste and weaponsDamage of water and sanitation infrastructure, leading to cross-contaminationPresence of debris and carcasses
Over-pumping of groundwater aquifersImproper rehabilitation and decommissioning of wellsWater contamination from sewage disposalInappropriate/energy-intensive WASH systems (e.g., septic tanks, desalination plants)
Shelter Contamination of land by chemicals, hazardous waste and weaponsEnvironmental hazards (e.g., floods, landslides, volcanoes)Loss of forests resulting in reduced access to fuel wood and building materials
Unsustainable supply of shelter construction materialsInappropriate design for a specifi need, site, community or culture, leading to misuse on non-useUnsustainable use of timber and fuel wood in shelter constructionDeforestation and soil erosionInadequate disposal of construction and packaging waste
Camp coordination and management
Contamination of land by chemicals, hazardous waste and weaponsEnvironmental hazards (e.g., floods, landslides and volcanoes)
Land degradation and biodiversity lossImproper management and decommissioning of pit latrinesUnsustainable use of natural resources (e.g., timber, fuel wood)Contamination by fuel spills and disposal of chemicalsImproper decommissioning of campsInadequate disposal of construction and packaging waste
Logistics Environmental hazards (e.g., floods, landslides and volcanoes)
Improper management and disposal of fuel, waste oil and tyresChemicals and waste from logistics base operationsProcurement of goods produced through unsustainable practices
Early recovery Damage to natural resources that support livelihoodsLoss of government capacity for natural resources management
Unsustainable use of natural resources for reconstruction and livelihoodsImproper land use and urban planningFailure to conduct strategic environmental assessmentsInappropriate building designs or choices of reconstruction materialsUnequal access to natural resources and changes in tenureDevelopment of unsustainable livelihoods
Source: Humanitarian Action and the Environment, see www.humanitarianreform.org
6 4
C h a p t e r 5
example, workshops have been held in Iran and the Republic of Yemen
and a national assessment exercise in Turkey. Similarly, the Unit is work-
ing to educate and inform stakeholders – especially those involved in
humanitarian response – on the need to take account of environmental
issues as an integral part of the humanitarian response. These include
the preparation and dissemination of a guidance note (see box) and the
development of technical guidelines for humanitarian agencies. A series
of proposed follow-up activities includes providing training within the
humanitarian cluster system.
In addition to the environment, gender, age and HIV/AIDS are recog-
nized as cross-cutting issues for which clusters have responsibility for
mainstreaming into their own work. Gender is of particular importance
to ensure an effective humanitarian response in environmental emer-
gencies (see box on page 65). Several recent evaluations of emergency
responses (such as those following the Asia tsunami and Pakistan
earthquake) concluded that gender kept ‘falling through the cracks’.
Women, girls, boys and men each have different vulnerabilities and op-
portunities that must be analyzed and addressed in every emergency
context. In an effort to address this systemic weakness, the Gender
Standby Capacity Project (GenCap) was established in 2007.
“In practice, gender mainstreaming in our day-to-day work remains
a challenge because of the rapid nature of response work,” says Ingvill
Tveite, Norwegian Associate Expert at the Joint Environment Unit.
“We are committed to learning from our past actions and looking
for ways to address the different gender needs in our preparedness,
prevention and response activities. This requires a conscious change
in how we approach an emergency situation, yet as we strive to see
an environmental focus as an integral part of humanitarian response,
we should in a similar manner include gender as a natural component
of our work.”
“Effective humanitarian
response addresses the needs
and concerns of all groups
in an affected population.
This means understanding
how conflicts and disasters
affect women, men, boys
and girls differently and
basing programming on
their differential needs
and capacities. This is
what gender equality
programming is all about”
John Holmes, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator
6 5
T h e c h a n g i n g f a c e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e
Applying a gender perspective to disaster missions
During the Bangladesh floods in 1991, five times more women died than men. Two thirds of those killed during the Asia tsunami of 2004 were women. And the 2005 Pakistan earthquake resulted in the deaths of far more women than men. The reasons for these statistics are many, but women are often more vulnerable because in many cultures they have different areas of responsibility, different levels of personal freedom and movement, and different types of education. Cultural considerations can also affect activities during the rescue mission. For example, most of the Pakistan earthquake immedi-ate rescue teams were men, some of whom were reluctant to pull women from the rubble because the local culture does not allow them to touch women they do not know.
In recognition of the need for a greater focus on gender in disas-ter response missions, the United Nations Security Council adopted a Resolution in 2000. This states that women should be given the op-portunity to express their needs during a disaster or emergency and they should be part of the development of solutions to problems. The Resolution makes provision for women as well as men to be in-volved in decisions, for example, regarding pedestrian access to new roads and bridges or the location of a new well, something that does not happen as a matter of course in many societies.
Women should also be included in rescue missions and in recovery and future preparedness planning teams. While this can be difficult to achieve, since the demand is often for male-dominated
trades such as mechanics and fire-fighters, efforts in this direction will be rewarded by a more effective operation that can help a greater number of people in need.
An elderly woman sits amongst the rubble of her home. When houses are destroyed, women tend to suffer most, since in many cultures they are more likely to spend their time in and around the home
© Edward Parsons/IRIN
6 6
C h a p t e r 5
Bringing it all together
Coordination or facilitation?Dealing with the diversity of environmental emergencies requires a multi-
sectoral, multidisciplinary approach and coordinating the response effort
can be very difficult, especially in the immediate post-disaster chaos.
Many people are also reluctant to be ‘coordinated’. Vladimir Sakharov
prefers to use the term ‘facilitation’, and this is the main task of the Joint
Environment Unit: facilitating dialogue between different actors, stimulat-
ing cooperation, and providing a platform for common action.
finances in the conventional way – and this is one of our strengths, that
we do not rely on purely financial support,” says Vladimir Sakharov.
Indeed, the small unit model leverages capability among donors
and is beneficial to both donors and recipients, since donors get emer-
gency response experience while responding to emergencies in other
countries, believes Kathy Jones, Director of Evaluation and Communica-
tions, Office of Emergency Management, United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Patricia Charlebois, Environmental Affairs Officer at the Joint Envi-
ronment Unit (2000–2004) and now Head of the Pollution Response
Section at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agrees: “The
Joint Environment Unit fills a unique niche…although very small it is
‘lean and mean’; by that I mean it is efficient and has developed good
collaborative relationships to make up for its small size.”“There is never a problem
getting people to help when
an emergency occurs; the
problem is getting them to
work together efficiently.”
Kjell Larsson, Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB)
Not only does the Joint Environment Unit play a unique role in
bringing different United Nations and other international agencies
together, it also achieves a high degree of collaboration with very few
resources. “The Unit is different in that we have clear arrangements
with donors for ‘in kind’ resources – expertise, equipment, but not
Coordinating the response after the collapse of a uranium mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2004
© René Nijenhuis/OCHA
6 7
T h e c h a n g i n g f a c e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e
Patricia Charlebois has watched the nature of international response
to environmental emergencies change over the years. “A big change
has been the mainstreaming of the environmental emergencies com-
ponent into the wider disaster management structure of OCHA,” she
says. “Response activities are now much more integrated with more
cross-pollination; for example, including environmental emergency
experts in the same mobilization and training approach adopted by the
UNDAC system.” One of the benefits of this, along with advocacy work,
she notes, is the attraction of greater funding as donors become more
interested in the environmental aspects of disaster response.
Multilateral collaborationAs the previous chapters show, multilateral collaboration in environ-
mental emergency response has numerous benefits but needs strong
coordination. Good collaborative arrangements are in place with
numerous response organizations, such as the European Commis-
sion (EC)’s Monitoring and Information Centre (see Chapter 2) and
the World Health Organization (see below) as well as with individual
countries, particularly Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
When an environmental emergency has implications for human
health, the Joint Environment Unit works closely with the World
Health Organization Department of Public Health (PHE) International
Programme on Chemical Safety, Evidence and Policy on Environmen-
tal Health (EPE). For the moment, coordination and collaboration are
largely on an informal basis, case by case. However, there is potential
for further collaboration, especially in conducting risk assessment
and hazard monitoring, and in organizing pre-deployment training.
The Joint Environment Unit’s collaborative arrangements tend to
be informal and this has advantages in terms of the speed and flexibil-
ity of the response. “It makes for a less rigid decision-making process, ”
says Leif Jönsson, Head of the Regional Desk for Western, Eastern and
Southern Africa for the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB).
MSB has a stand-by capacity that can be activated at short notice and
has been involved closely with the Joint Environment Unit in devel-
oping an environmental emergency training course as well as new
guidelines that aim to improve operating procedures (see Chapter 1).
This close contact, combined with consistent support from the Swed-
ish Government, contributed to Sweden being awarded a 2009 Green
Star Award for its national contribution to environmental emergency
work (see page 76).
The joint United Nations–European Commission emergency response mission to the Hebei Spirit oil spill clean-up operation was a model of success
© Jonathan Waddell/OCHA
6 8
C h a p t e r 5
Madagascar’s forests under threat
Hassan Partow, Environmental Affairs Officer for UNEP’s PCDMB, was deployed to Madagascar as part of an UNDAC team in April 2007. The mission was in response to Tropical Cyclones Jaya and Indlala, which had flattened towns and villages and wiped out the harvests of many poor farming communities.
“The cyclone created a window of opportunity that was unscru-pulously exploited for natural resource looting,” he says. “Exception-ally, following the cyclone’s aftermath, permission was given by the authorities to collect reportedly ‘dead wood’ of high-value timber trees, namely rosewood and ebony. However, we had not seen or come across verifiable reports of strong and heavy hardwood trees being toppled by the cyclone, which is unlikely, only the more fragile coconut palms and breadfruit trees were visibly damaged.”
The authorities subsequently allowed the raw timber to be exported, thereby creating a market for it, which is otherwise legally prohibited in Madagascar. As a result, illegal logging of high-value rosewood timber got out of control, with dealers, middle men and export agents all moving in. The ensuing political crisis in Madagas-car in 2009 made things worse; thousands of people were going into the national parks in organized gangs to pillage the timber. On verifying the evidence received from local communities he had met during the UNDAC mission, Partow alerted the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which as recently as 2007 had designated the national parks as World Heritage
Sites because of their outstanding biodiversity. “Given the scale of the pillaging, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee requested the Government to submit a detailed report on the sites’ status,” adds Partow. “This shows the potential gaps that could arise from the secondary impacts of disasters if not addressed in recovery planning and follow up.”
Tropical Cyclones Jaya and Indlala flattened thousands of trees, including coconut and breadfruit
© Hassan Partow/UNEP
6 9
T h e c h a n g i n g f a c e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e
Within UNEP, coordination and collaboration between the Joint
Environment Unit and the Post-Conflict and Disaster Management
Branch (PCDMB) has grown over the years, particularly since the Unit
has developed its resources and begun to focus more on follow-up and
preparedness. The relationship is well planned and even includes ‘loan’ of
staff when either department is under particular pressure.
“While there is often a successful ‘hand-over’ from the emergency
response to post-disaster recovery or clean-up operations (see Chapter 4),
this is not always automatic and some cases fall into a gap, ” believes Muralee
Thummarukudy Programme Officer at UNEP’s PCDMB. This is often due to
prioritization: typically ‘bigger’ emergencies are followed up more system-
atically. In some cases the countries themselves have the capacity to follow
up, but in others this gets left behind. This needs to be resolved so there is
predictable and robust response and follow up in all cases.
Taking a neutral stanceThe importance of being able to take a neutral position in collaborative
arrangements and dealing with a disaster has been shown by some of
the case studies illustrated in Chapters 2–4. For example, in response
to transboundary emergencies or when a health scare affects political
stability, the benefits of multilateral assistance are clear since it is much
more impartial and neutral than a bilateral or national response.
It is interesting to note that the number of requests to the Joint
Environment Unit for assistance increased markedly once their focus
widened from addressing mainly ‘classic’ or technological emergencies
to including those precipitated by natural disasters. Vladimir Sakharov
explains why:
“Although we use the term ‘natural disasters’, I think it is misleading.
There are natural phenomena, but disasters are created by man. Earth-
quakes kill people because houses are not built to withstand the shocks;
“An environmental expert
used to be an expert with
some knowledge of some
areas, doing what he or she
thought was the right thing.
Now the environmental
expert is evolving to become
the eyes and ears of a bigger
system, backed up by tools
and follow up.”
Sander van Dijk, UNDAC Environmental Expert
7 0
C h a p t e r 5
floods destroy towns and villages because they are built in the wrong
places. But even so, in the case of natural disasters, affected countries
do not hesitate to request international assistance, because it is felt that
nobody is responsible. It is totally different in the case of industrial accid-
ents. By definition, there is always someone responsible and this leads
often to secrecy and reluctance to request outside assistance. Some 15
years ago, when we were establishing a special response mechanism, we
thought countries would rush to us asking for environmental assistance.
That was an illusion. However, we are not discouraged; we are explaining
to countries that our aim is not to put blame, but to provide neutral and
impartial assistance.”
Spanish rescue teams searching for earthquake survivors in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan in 2005. European donors currently provide the majority of international environmental emergency response support
© Edward Parsons/IRIN
“There is a great opportunity,
but also a challenge, for the
United Nations to play a major
role in developing standards
for effective cooperation in
environmental emergencies.”
Johann Goldammer, Global Fire Monitoring Center
Widening the netOver the past 15 years a wide network of collaboration has been
established with donors in Europe and North America, who are often
called upon to provide the expertise and equipment needed to respond
quickly to environmental emergencies around the world. And the speed
of response has improved greatly over the years: “UNDAC teams now
get out faster and send more precise, detailed indications of needs. This
allows partner countries to decide if they have appropriate equipment
and expertise, whether to offer to send, and to send the right response
units quickly,” says Kathy Jones, United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA).
7 1
T h e c h a n g i n g f a c e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e
However, despite the development of many positive arrangements,
there is still a need for stronger collaboration with nations in other
regions of the world. “It’s preferable to respond to a disaster in a certain
country from within the same region, because deployments should
be faster and less expensive and there should be fewer linguistic and
cultural issues to overcome,” says Matthew Conway, Programme Officer
at the Joint Environment Unit.
It is also important to ensure response is available in case of travel
restrictions, as would occur in the case of a global pandemic. Unit
staff have therefore initiated discussions on how to go beyond tradi-
tional donors and extend the resource base to Africa, Asia, the Pacific
and Latin America. “We need to increase local capacity particularly in
light of the likely rise in number and intensity of environmental emer-
gencies in developing countries due to increased industrialization,
trans-boundary effects and climate change,” adds Conway.
Chris Dijkens, Head of the Department for Crisis Management
within the Netherlands’ Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and
the Environment agrees: “At present we are too dependent on a few
Western countries for environmental emergency expertise and the
reaction time is too long,” he says. “We need to develop more local
capacity and wider geographic distribution and networks of countries
with focal points in the developing world. Now we have tools such
as FEAT, HIT and the mobile laboratory, we can ‘copy and paste’ them,
thereby improving the whole environmental emergency response
mechanism.”
The AGEE is playing an important role in working to improve the
international response system (see box). This includes anchoring emer-
gency response into a broader framework and developing international
guidelines, says current AGEE Chair, Ambassador Toni Frisch (also Assis-
tant Director General and Head of the Humanitarian Aid Department of
Improving the international environmental emergency response system
Following the seventh AGEE meeting held in Rosersberg, Sweden, it was agreed that while the existing international system for environmental emergency response was effective in many ways, it lacked coordination, with gaps in areas of response and preparedness, including lack of an official noti-fication system. It was therefore decided to introduce a new initiative aimed at improving the existing system for inter-national environmental emergency response and prepared-ness. This became known as the Rosersberg Initiative. The aim is to make priority recommendations and enable members to implement them in a participatory manner. Action will be taken it three thematic areas:
Awareness raising, engagement, training and capacity 1. building: aiming to increase the awareness of stakehold-ers and encourage their engagement in environmental emergency preparedness and response through increased communication and advocacy activitiesImproving the international legal system in environ-2. mental emergencies: commissioning a baseline study of existing international systems governing environmental emergencies Improving national structure and mechanisms: helping 3. countries to improve their operational structures and mechanisms to ensure a better, more coordinated and more effective response in case of disasters.
7 2
C h a p t e r 5
Towards better systems and procedures
When dealing with environmental emergencies, it may appear that the international community is faced with more questions than answers. For example: what kind of emergency warrants multilat-eral assistance? Is there an agreed threshold of severity? Is there an obligation to report an environmental emergency and to whom? How is an official request or offer for assistance communicated?
In addition, once the need for assistance is confirmed, can spe-cial procedures be employed to speed up the process of granting visas and import/export procedures? Who pays for transport and accommodation in the recipient country?
Problems like these are not unique to international environmen-tal assistance; they are encountered by all parties involved in pro-viding humanitarian assistance in conflict situations and following natural disasters. The difference is that, while humanitarian assis-tance to conflict situations is rendered according to a well-defined and almost universally adopted legal framework – the Geneva Conven-tions – hardly anything exists at the global level for the international response to natural disasters and environmental emergencies. International treaties exist only to address two specific challenges (nuclear and transboundary incidents, see page 27).
The need for greater coordination in emergency response is well recognized and in recent years both national and inter-national organizations have established a growing number of agreements, institutions and guidelines. As the second thematic area of the Rosersberg Initiative, the Bruch Report examined the experiences of numerous regional and international approaches, including lessons learned from 20 frameworks and 15 agreements covering international watercourses.
The Report makes several recommendations on how to improve the international system governing the response to envi-ronmental emergencies:
Operational measures: develop and implement a joint fmanagement plan, guidance for response and a certification system for response to environmental emergenciesCapacity-building and awareness-raising measures: strengthen fregional response systems, conduct training, build awareness, institutionalize technical assistance and capacity buildingLegal and policy measures: secure a political mandate for fimproving international environmental emergency gover-nance systems and develop a new international legal instru-ment governing notification and response to environmental
emergencies.
7 3
T h e c h a n g i n g f a c e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e
the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation). In his view, AGEE
can play a major role in building awareness and in sharing information
and knowledge through the networks it is building.
Preparedness is the new priority
Limited capacity to deal with disasters remains a major burden,
particularly in developing countries, where an estimated 97 percent
of worldwide natural disaster-related deaths occur every year. During
the past few years, the Joint Environment Unit has therefore changed
its focus away from pure response missions. Staff are now working
to improve human and institutional analytical and methodological
capacity for environmental emergency prevention, preparedness and
mitigation, particularly in developing countries, where rapid industrial
development is taking place but where capacity to prevent, prepare
for and respond to disasters is limited. The idea is that, once capacity is
developed, the benefiting countries will be in a position to address all
elements of disaster management without necessarily having to rely
on international assistance.
Activities in this area are focused on the strengthening of national
capacities of countries and to lay the foundation for regional coopera-
tion in cases of environmental emergencies. Prevention measures pro-
vide for outright avoidance of the adverse impacts of environmental
emergencies, while preparedness implies measures taken in advance
to ensure effective response to their impacts, including issuing effec-
tive early warning. Mitigation, on the other hand, entails structural
and non-structural measures to limit the adverse impacts of natural
hazards, environmental degradation and technological hazards.
Franklin Thévenaz, Deputy Permanent Representative of Switzer-
land to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
“I would expect to
see in the near future
that the international
response to environmental
emergencies should
become easier, as
structures and procedures
are put in place and
streamlined.”
Dave Wright, US Environmental Protection Agency
7 4
C h a p t e r 5
Keep valuable information safe!
Collating and distributing information, particularly on ‘lessons learned’ and readiness activities will have lasting value only if it is retained in a useful form. Vladimir Sakharov describes how doing this could have saved many lives during the Izmit earthquake in Turkey in 1999.
“A few weeks after our mission to Turkey, we learned that a decade earlier there had been an APELL workshop – bring-ing together all key stakeholders to discuss who does what, when, where and how – conducted in Izmit by colleagues from UNEP. Yet no record or trace of this important exercise could be found 10 years later. This proved to be an invaluable lesson that no matter how excellent such a workshop might be – and the APELL workshops run by UNEP were certainly of this high calibre – that without proper follow-up, any gains risk being completely lost over time.’’
“Environmental emergencies
don’t usually create such big
headlines as humanitarian
ones so we need to work
harder to raise concern…
Preparedness missions
are almost never reported,
but I am pleased to see the
issue being raised higher on
the international agenda,
particularly through links
with climate change.”
Toni Frisch, AGEE Chair
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and World Food
Programme (WFP), in Rome, has witnessed a changing focus in crisis
management: “The past emphasis was mainly on response. Now there is
much more focus on preparedness, risk prevention, capacity building and
longer-term awareness-raising of risk. Response is still there; but mainly
response management. But the future belongs to preventing disaster.”
In recognition of its increasing role in disaster preparedness,
the Joint Environment Unit was integrated into the Emergency
Preparedness Section of OCHA in 2008. Other initiatives, such as the
7 5
T h e c h a n g i n g f a c e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e
Rosersberg Initiative, will further develop the work of the Unit in this
direction.
“The most important thing is to follow up emergency response
by building capacity and more effective governance systems for
emergencies within the affected country,” says Johann Goldammer.
“We find that countries are increasingly reluctant to accept disaster
relief but much more willing to accept follow-up or future prevention
support.”
Towards greater awareness and advocacy
Over the past 15 or 20 years, people in general have become much
more aware of environmental issues. “They are interested and under-
stand the problems more, so it has become easier to work at policy
level and to raise funds and there is greater political will to deal with
hazardous waste,” notes Laurent Nicole, consultant chemical engineer
and specialist in occupational health and safety.
Recognizing the need to build further awareness and advocacy,
AGEE and the Rosersberg Initiative have encouraged the development of
a new awards scheme. The ‘Green Star Awards’ is a joint initiative among
UNEP, OCHA and Green Cross International, and has been introduced
to recognize those who have made remarkable efforts to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to environmental disasters around the world.
The awards scheme is intended to raise the profile of environmental
emergencies and to underline the connection between environmental
impacts of natural disasters, technological accidents and complex emer-
gencies, and their consequences for affected populations and providers
of humanitarian assistance. It is hoped that this raised awareness will
prompt increased international participation in preventing, preparing
for and responding to environmental emergencies.
“That the Joint Environment
Unit has built systems to
help countries respond and
prepare for environmental
emergencies themselves is an
incredible achievement.”
Kathy Jones, US Environmental Protection Agency
7 6
C h a p t e r 5
Winners of the inaugural Green Star Awards in 2009
Individuals: Michael Cowing, a specialist in the management fof hazardous and municipal waste and contaminated land at UNEP’s PCDMB. He was one of the first ‘on-the-ground’ envi-ronmental experts to participate in the Early Recovery Needs Assessment in Gaza in early 2009.Organizations: The Center for Scientific Support in Disaster fSituations (CENACID), Brazil and the Spiez Laboratory, which is the Swiss institute responsible for protection against nuclear, biological and chemical threats and hazards.Donor Governments: the f Netherlands, which has been a driving force in recent years in improving international preparedness and response and was instrumental in developing the Flash Environmental Assessment Tool and the Environmental Assess-ment Module; and Sweden, notably through the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), together with the Swedish Interna-tional Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) that have been funding most of MSB’s deployments. Sweden has been one of the most prominent actors in efforts to prepare for, and respond to environmental emergencies around the world.
Winners of the inaugural Green Star Awards in 2009. From left to right: Renato de Lima of The Center for Scientific Support in Disaster Situations (CENACID) of Paraná Federal University in Brazil; Nils Svartz of Sweden; Marc Cadisch of Spiez Laboratory in Switzerland; Chris Dijkens and Niek de Regt of the Netherlands; and Mike Cowing of UNEP
© Mercedes Rodriguez/OCHA
7 7
T h e c h a n g i n g f a c e o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e s p o n s e
There are five categories of awards: individuals, organizations,
donor governments, aid-recipient governments and corporations.
The selection criteria include dedication to response through work-
ing in a professional, collaborative and transparent manner; major
improvements in internal capacity and preparedness to deal with
environmental emergencies; efforts to support international response
missions; and international capacity-building missions aimed at help-
ing countries prepare for environmental emergencies.
Primed for the futureAs this chapter shows, there is a general consensus among environ-
mental disaster professionals that much has been learned over the
past 15 years. Furthermore, they believe that this knowledge has both
prompted and enabled those involved in the multilateral response sys-
tem to increase their focus on preparedness activities. Such readiness
is likely to become all the more relevant as the world faces significant
new challenges, as the final chapter explains.
Linking with sustainable development
The Environmental Emergencies Partnership (EEP) was launched by UNEP and OCHA in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. The idea was based around the need to enhance environ-mental emergency management in developing countries and countries with transition economies by bridging gaps be-tween phases of the disaster management cycle (prevention, preparedness and response) and between different disaster management stakeholders.
A wide range of national authorities and regional and international organizations support the partnership, with the Joint Environment Unit acting as Secretariat. The EEP has shown particular value as a tool for engaging countries in preparedness activities. For example, it provided the impetus and context for Joint Environment Unit response prepared-ness missions to Iran in 2005, and to Turkey in 2007.
6
Floods in Hanoi, Vietnam in 2008. The frequency and intensity of natural disasters, particularly floods and storms, is increasing with global climate change © Tung X Ngo/IRIN
7 9
Stepping up preparedness activities: Meeting the challenge of climate change
Climate change is already increasing the frequency and intensity
of natural disasters, particularly floods, storms and droughts. It is
estimated that around 70 percent of such disasters are now related to
climate, up from around 50 percent only 20 years ago. Furthermore,
disasters are now taking a heavier human toll and costing more to
deal with. During the past 10 years, 2.4 billion people were affected
by climate-related disasters, compared with 1.7 billion in the previous
decade. And the cost of responding to disasters rose tenfold between
1992 and 2008.
As the world’s deserts encroach on formerly productive agricultural
land and the sea begins to flood coastal settlements and low-lying is-
lands, climate change is starting to re-draw world maps of population
density and resource availability. In the face of increasing competi-
tion for scarce resources – such as water and fertile land – migration,
political instability and even violent conflict are likely to rise, especially
when at-risk areas also have high rates of population growth.
While the effects of climate change are being felt all over the world,
the people who are already most vulnerable to the effects of disasters
– the poor, the socially marginalized, women, children and the elderly,
and those who lack the capacity to prepare themselves – are most at
risk.
Emergency relief services cannot afford to stand by and watch as the
destructive effects of repeated climate disasters overwhelm vulnerable
Natural disasters with serious impact on human life are recorded systematically serving to set priorities in preparedness and prevention work
Source: Guha-Sapir D. and Vos F. (2009) Quantifying global and environmental change impacts:
Methods, criteria and definitions for data on hydro-meteorological hazards, forthcoming in:
Bausch H.G. et al. (Eds). Coping with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security Threats.
Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
Number of disasters reported 1975–2008
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008
Num
ber o
f dis
aste
rs re
port
ed
8 0
C h a p t e r 6
communities. So how is climate change likely to affect people and the
environment? And how is the international response system preparing
itself for future demands?
What are the likely effects of climate change?
According to the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
climate change is likely to be manifested by an increase in the frequency
of climate-related hazards, especially floods and storms, with heavier
precipitation and stronger winds. Hurricane Katrina showed how easily
Large-scale land-use fires and wildfires (such as here in Indonesia), contribute to global warming by releasing large quantities of stored carbon from the trees themselves and from the peat in which they grow
© Brad Sanders/GFMC
“Climate change is
increasingly expected
to trigger the causes
behind natural disasters.
This, in turn, might
lead to environmental
emergencies much larger
in scope, and much more
complex, than we have
experienced so far.”
Her Excellency Gunilla Carlsson, Swedish Minister for International Development Cooperation, speaking at the
seventh meeting of AGEE in 2007
8 1
Stepping up preparedness ac t iv it ies : Meeting the chal lenge of c l imate change
a relatively small increase in storm strength could overwhelm even a
developed country’s existing local preparedness capacity. Together with
increasing climate unpredictability, storms of greater magnitude will
expose larger and often less well prepared regions to the risk of extreme
weather events and associated environmental emergencies.
An increase in the frequency of severe weather events is likely to lead
to severe financial losses, holding back economic growth and develop-
ment. This may have the effect of further widening the gap between
countries that can afford prevention measures and those that still lack
the required capacity.
Over the longer term, sea level rise is likely to put hundreds of
millions of people living in coastal communities at a greater risk of
the impacts of floods and storms. At the other extreme, droughts
are likely to become more prolonged and to affect wider geographi-
cal areas, something that is already becoming apparent in eastern
Africa.
Droughts, floods and storms also have severe consequences for
agricultural production. Added to this is the risk that major glaciers,
for example those in the high Himalayas that feed the major rivers
of South and South East Asia, will disappear. River flow is likely to
become seasonal rather than year-round, with enormous effects on
agricultural production and food security.
Coastal flooding, shoreline erosion, drought, natural resource
degradation and food shortages can precipitate mass migration
and increase the potential for conflict. They can also spark political
unrest, with similar consequences. The example of Darfur in Sudan
(see page 57) shows what can happen next.
Ambassador Toni Frisch, current Chair of the Advisory Group on
Environmental Emergencies (AGEE), feels strongly that the occur-
rence of natural disasters is increasing due to climate change, and
it is important that people take note and understand that this will
mean more environmental problems. “The dangers associated with
flooding – including siltation, oil spills and chemical contamina-
tion – are often underestimated,” he says. “The world talks about
the number of deaths, and that is a tragedy, but the consequences
Crops were ruined and agricultural land smothered in mud in the aftermath of Cyclone Indlala in Madagascar in 2007
© Hassan Partow/UNEP
8 2
C h a p t e r 6
for the environment can be most severe in cases where there are
few deaths and where less international attention is drawn.” There is
therefore a need to increase awareness of the link between climate
change and environmental emergencies and to underline the impor-
tance of collaboration in prevention and response initiatives.
What does climate change mean for international environmental emergency response?
Climate change is now registering at the top of the international
agenda. At the United Nations Climate Change Conference to be
held in Copenhagen in December 2009, 180 nations are meeting in
an attempt to agree targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
commit funds to support development of renewable energy solu-
tions. At the same time, preparations are in progress for a 2011 IPCC
Special Report on: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters
to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. These and other high-profile
events provide opportunities for the United Nations disaster-response
agencies to come together with the scientific community to strength-
en understanding of and consensus on the major issues and the way
forward.
The effect of climate change is already straining the disaster relief
system and adapting to climate change will require a rethink of cur-
rent humanitarian and environmental emergency response systems.
In hazard hotspots, there is a need to shift focus and invest in better
disaster planning and preparedness to reduce the effects of extreme
weather on communities. Rather than react to emergencies, disaster
professionals must learn to act sooner and act smarter.
“The world is changing and we need to re-evaluate our mission,
says Vladimir Sakharov. “We should be better equipped to respond to
“The importance of environmental
issues in humanitarian assistance
is better-recognized now than ever
before. This momentum will only
continue to grow, particularly in
the face of global challenges like
climate change, which is already
creating significant humanitarian
consequences. Environmental
emergency preparedness and
response are vital, on a global basis,
to meet these challenges.”
Achim Steiner, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director United Nations Environment Programme and John Holmes, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator
8 3
Stepping up preparedness ac t iv it ies : Meeting the chal lenge of c l imate change
the need for preparedness, we need to be creative keeping in mind
limited resources.”
In addition to increased funding to help countries prepare, this
implies a need for greater efficiency, both within the United Na-
tions itself, and in its ways of working with other development
partners. It also means focusing more on an integrated, multi-
disciplinary approach to prevention and preparedness and on
building local capacity, thereby reducing demand for international
response.
A number of recent directional shifts are affecting the United
Nations system itself. There is renewed emphasis on the future
evolution of international environmental governance, including
calls for greater coherence within the United Nations system, for
harmonization of aid under a new architecture, for increased focus
on the role of the private sector, for national ownership of development
programmes and for results-based management (see box, page 84).
Hassan Partow, Environmental Affairs Officer at UNEP’s Post-Conflict
and Disaster Management Branch (PCDMB), believes that, inter-
estingly, climate change gives the environment – and the field of
environmental emergencies – more weight. He sees this being
reflected already in the current United Nations reform process and
recent General Assembly Resolutions or UNEP Governing Council
decisions.
In UNEP’s Medium Term Strategy for 2010 to 2013, disasters
and conflicts take a higher profile, being highlighted as one of the
agency’s six priority areas. The Strategy sets out the next phase in
the evolution of UNEP as it becomes a more effective, efficient and
results-focused entity, meeting the expectations of governments and
other stakeholders in responding to global environmental challenges
and opportunities.
Spreading the word
As discussed in Chapter 5, the Advisory Group on Environmental
Emergencies (AGEE) introduced the Rosersberg Initiative in recognition
of the fact that there is a need for improvement in the existing system
for environmental emergency response. One of the gaps identified was
that of sharing knowledge and information. While an extensive body
of experience in the domain of international emergency assistance has
OCHA’s Jesper Lund speaking to the media following the earthquake in northern Pakistan in 2005
© Jürg Zaugg/OCHA/SDC
8 4
C h a p t e r 6
Delivering as One
Recognizing that it needed to change in order to respond to the challeng-es of a changing world, the United Nations launched its Delivering as One pilot initiative in 2007. This initiative aims to test how the United Nations family could provide development assistance in a more coordinated way.
Eight countries (Albania, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uruguay, and Vietnam) volunteered to host pilot studies in an effort to work out how best to capitalize on the comparative advantages of the different United Nations agencies. This includes experimenting with ways to increase the system’s impact through more coherent programmes, reduced transaction costs for governments, and lower overhead costs for the United Nations itself.
The aim of the initiative is to reduce duplication and transaction costs so that the United Nations can use resources more effectively to support partner countries in achieving their development goals. There are indications from some donors that they will pursue a more coherent and coordinated approach by pooling funds at the country level to support the work of the United Nations.
“These pilots show the United Nations’ commitment to bringing together the expertise, experience and capacities of the entire United Nations family to support national development strategies,” said Kemal Dervi, Chair of the United Nations Development Group (UNDG). “The specialized agencies have a wealth of knowledge and commitment to offer, and much closer cooperation between the Funds and Programmes and our wider family can yield great benefits.”
The pilot country teams report that their Governments are exercising increased national leadership over United Nations programmes and
taking a stronger role in steering United Nations agencies to support national development priorities. They are also better aligning their capacity to the needs of country programmes, and the use of pooled funds is showing the potential to be an important country-level source of predictable funding.
The Joint Environment Unit represents such a model of cooperation between agencies, preceding the Delivering as One initiative. By building on potential synergies between OCHA and UNEP, the Unit maximizes complementarities and reduces duplication of effort. The Joint Unit’s funding model also moves beyond United Nations traditions.
OCHA colleagues René Nijenhuis (left) and Stephen Tull (right) were part of the UNDAC team deployed following Typhoon Morakot in August 2009
© Sawyer Mars
Source: www.undp.org
8 5
Stepping up preparedness ac t iv it ies : Meeting the chal lenge of c l imate change
been amassed, much of this knowledge is not commonly known or
used outside of its primary users, the relief responders. Thus there is a
gap between response on the one side and prevention and prepared-
ness on the other.
At the same time there are opportunities to bridge this gap. Firstly,
by making better use of the experiences and expertise available in
industrialized countries by sharing them with the countries that need
assistance. Secondly, there is scope to improve access to the lessons
“Improving our ability
to respond effectively to
increasing and increasingly
extreme climatic events is now
a priority part of our business.
This calls for a systemic shift
of attention, resources and
expertise to improve disaster
preparedness.”
John Holmes, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator
National Focal Point personnel participating in the eighth meeting of the Advisory Group on Environmental Emergencies in 2009
© OCHA
8 6
C h a p t e r 6
learned from past disasters and the latest thinking on environmental
emergencies. And thirdly, existing voluntary guidelines, such as those
prepared by the Joint Environment Unit (see Chapter 1), could be pro-
moted more widely.
“The year 2012 provides a
once-in-a-decade opportunity
to focus world attention on
environmental emergencies”
René Nijenhuis, Joint Environment Unit
AGEE is playing a leading role in the push for change. Member
countries are being encouraged to promote a greater awareness of the
environmental dimension of crises and the importance of addressing
these as an integrated part of humanitarian response. Through their own
national authorities, they will also encourage knowledge of – and adher-
ence to – recommendations, guidelines and technical standards that
exist or are being developed in this field (such as the guidance note on
Humanitarian Action and the Environment, see Chapter 5).
Children sit amidst the rubble of their home in Balakot, Pakistan in 2005. Hazard contingency plans are part of the re-building exercise
© Edward Parsons/IRIN
8 7
Stepping up preparedness ac t iv it ies : Meeting the chal lenge of c l imate change
René Nijenhuis believes it will also be important for the Joint Envi-
ronment Unit to address the issue that not all potential recipients of
assistance are aware of what could be available to them. “Countries that
need our help often don’t know how to request assistance. So one of
our priorities will be to develop and distribute guidelines on the kind
of international support available through the multilateral system, who
provides it, and how to request it.” “The Joint Environment
Unit has established and
strengthened the connection
between response and
preparation. Many recipient
countries don’t want just
response teams, they want
to be prepared so they can
respond by themselves.”
Kathy Jones, US Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental experts checking for contamination following the collapse of a uranium mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2004
© OCHA
8 8
C h a p t e r 6
Preparedness in action: saving lives in Mozambique
At the end of February 2007, Mozambique was reeling from the double impact of two catastrophic natural disasters. While the Zam-bezi and Save rivers were already flooded, a Category Four cyclone brought more rain inland and devastated the southern coast, affect-ing over 300,000 people. The disaster also caused damage to local infrastructure costing approximately US$171 million and destroyed 277,000 hectares of crops, including an estimated 80 percent of the cereal crop in the affected areas.
In a country where more than half the population lives below the poverty line, these recurring disasters exacerbate people’s existing vulnerabilities and represent major economic setbacks. The loss of assets such as homes, livestock, clothing, agricultural tools and seeds had a devastating impact on a population that depends on subsistence agriculture and fishing. Poverty and the lack of any vi-able alternative to living in the flood plain underlie this exposure to repeated shocks.
Ironically, damming the Zambezi to control flooding has put more people at risk. The ability to control the annual floods encour-aged encroachment onto the lowlands of the lower Zambezi, where the land is very fertile. However, major flood events overwhelm the capacity of the dams and they are becoming more frequent. The communities currently living in the flood plain are essentially accept-ing the risk of major floods in return for better harvests and fishing. From a risk reduction perspective, one solution is to encourage permanent resettlement on higher ground, but many do not see this as a viable alternative to the more fertile flood plains. The national
disaster management authority estimated that of those evacuated during the 2000, 2001 and 2007 floods, some 40 percent returned to the flood plains.
Although limited in scale, the 2007 floods provide insight into the elements that make up an effective national and international response. The response has been considered a success as there was no widespread suffering or avoidable deaths. This is credited largely to effective national preparedness and response coordination with international donors and agencies in support. While evaluations have identified numerous best practices, the key preparedness elements that ensured a successful response were:
Strong national leadership and political commitment to fpreparedness: In particular, the clear political support and direction that led to the creation of the National Disaster Man-agement Institute (INGC) and subsequent implementation of extensive preparedness measuresAvailability of resources, technical support and funds for fpreparedness: In addition to national resources, international donor investment and support to the INGC and related pre-paredness action was instrumentalActive involvement of communities, civil society and agencies fin the implementation of disaster preparedness measures in advanceStrong international and national working relations in pre- fparedness activities (such as the October 2007 simulation exercises)Rapid availability of sufficient funds via the United Nations f
Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF).
8 9
Stepping up preparedness ac t iv it ies : Meeting the chal lenge of c l imate change
Guidelines will also be prepared on how countries that want to
provide international support should go about this. “Many actual and
potential donors have identified this as a problem area,” he continues.
“They do not always know what they are ‘getting into’, what is expected
from them, what they may expect in return for their participation in
multilateral assistance, and what is expected by the recipient country”.
Further attention will also be paid to the need to strengthen the in-
ternational governance system for environmental emergency response.
The year 2012 provides a once-in-a-decade opportunity to focus world
attention on environmental emergencies, says René Nijenhuis, since the
next global summit is likely to be held that year. The year also marks the
end of the Rosersberg Initiative, the end of the Medium Term Plan of the Mil-
lennium Development Goals and the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol. Follow-
ing on from the Bruch Report (see Chapter 5), the next step is to guide the
process towards a United Nations General Assembly Resolution or UNEP
Governing Council Decision to formalize global frameworks for respond-
ing to environmental emergencies.
Many developing countries are in the process of designing multi-hazard
contingency plans at national level. Promoting inclusion of environmental
emergencies within these would help ensure better preparedness if a disas-
ter strikes and reduce the need for international emergency assistance.
Johann Goldammer, Director of the Global Fire Monitoring Center,
has a vision for the future that includes attention to more decentralized
working. “The problem is that financial resources are linked to requests
for assistance and these often are not forthcoming. Countries will have to
play a more proactive role by themselves.”
A final word
After 15 years of international effort to tackle environmental emergen-
cies, much has been accomplished. However, there is still space for
growth and improvement. Renewed efforts are required in the face of
the major challenges facing the Earth due to the pressures of develop-
ment, population growth and climate change. But as this publication
shows, there is a strong spirit of collaboration among nations and a
deep desire to minimize environmental damage. With guidance from
the United Nations and drive from the Advisory Group on Environmen-
tal Emergencies and the Joint Environment Unit, the plans described in
this chapter can be achieved within the next five years, bringing about
further real and vital progress in the way the world deals with environ-
mental emergencies.
Enviro
nm
ental Em
ergen
cies | Learnin
g fro
m m
ultilateral resp
on
se to d
isasters
Environmental EmergenciesLearning from multi lateral response to disasters
Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment UnitPalais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10Switzerland
Email: [email protected]
http://ochaonline.un.org/ochaunep
Office for the Coordinationof Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA)